MAC Office Hours: "Weisure," Beauty Labor, and Order


She's a glamorous go-getter with nothing temp about her! Full-time, overtime—her makeup, like her day, goes on and on. What she loves: the no-fade staying power of these M∙A∙C Pro Longwear formulas—including new M∙A∙C Pro Longwear Blush. 

I don’t mean to pick on MAC—really, I don’t. In fact, if the brand didn’t intrigue me so much I’d ignore it (when have I ever written about, say, Maybelline?). It used Miss Piggy for a model, for chrissakes, and even though I hopped right onto that with looking at the version of “authenticity” MAC peddles, the fact remains that I have to admire how well MAC’s marketing team zeroes in on what skeptics comme moi might sniff out in a brand.

So at first, when I saw this astute Makeup Museum post critiquing MAC’s latest line, titled Office Hours, I glanced at the styling of the ads for the collection and actually had a knee-jerk defense of the brand. Yes, the ads depict a working woman whose office looks like cotton candy, and who appears to do nothing more demanding than file her nails; yes, they’re styled in a retro fashion, hearkening back to the days when the best a woman could hope for was being head of the secretary pool. I saw the spot-on points the Makeup Museum’s Curator was making—but truth be told, I sorta liked the look of the ads. Pretty much the only fashion trend I’ve endorsed since grunge fell out of favor is the Mad Men-inspired 1960s revival (I’m writing this while sporting a checkered pinafore and a bouffant). The show and the styles it brought back have been critiqued as a manifestation of our national longing to return to a “simpler time”—simpler being code for racist, sexist, and psychically stifled—and perhaps in some aspects it is. But as creatures of 2012, we also have the luxury of being able to see the era in perfect hindsight; in loud shift dresses and winged eyeliner we may see not conformity but a generation of women on the precipice of feminism, rebellion bubbling inside them, just waiting for the right moment to burst forth.

Point is: At first I saw the MAC collection as being a reference to where women actually are today, not an idealization of the past. I didn’t even mind the Barbie-fied version of work the ads fed us; I don’t particularly want a “real” work-based makeup collection featuring a shade called Printer Preset Blues, you know? Certainly I wouldn’t want it from MAC, which even more so than other beauty brands is not in the business of reflecting our realities; they’re in the business of creating our fantasies. So, sure, let the vision created with this collection be not an office populated with Flavia coffee machines but a Mad Men-style glam kitsch office where martini hour starts at 3 and Esquivel is piped through the intercom.

That doesn’t answer the fundamental question raised over at Makeup Museum, though, or the question lurking beneath my own assessment of the campaign: Why office work? Why, of all the possible themes for MAC to choose from, choose a place associated with drudgery, in-the-box thinking, and tedium? (Apologies to all who enjoy their office jobs; my freelancer bias is showing, I suppose.)

The campaign is a sort of reverse nod to a trend sociologists have noted in the past several years—a conflation of work and leisure (or “weisure,” if you must) most readily visible in the expectation that because new technologies allow us to be available 24/7, we’ll actually be available 24/7. Theoretically, the upside is a more flexible work culture (I can work poolside on my smartphone!); the downside is an expansion of what can fairly be considered “office hours” (must I work poolside on my smartphone?). Running parallel to the phenomenon of working hours coming to resemble leisure is the phenomenon of leisure time beginning to resemble work. I mean, when else in the history of humankind have 34 million people signed up to spend their leisure time tending imaginary farms? Or eagerly signed up for the privilege of basically creating our own timesheets of time-and-place accountability?

The idea behind things like Farmville and Foursquare is that our leisure time will seem somehow more pleasurable if we view it through the lens of work; they provide us with rules, feedback on our own activities, and clearly defined parameters. There is comfort in regulation. And so it is with MAC’s Office Collection: Beyond the kooky pink kitsch of the ads, there’s definite—and appealing—order. Lip glosses take their place in the office drawer alongside paper clips and staple removers; blush compacts line up next to perfectly sharpened pencils. MAC’s immensely popular Lipglass is shown open but immaculate next to a broken pencil (the writing kind, not the eyelining kind), the idea being that Lipglass is more reliable than good old-fashioned work tools.





It might sound like I’m strictly cynical about MAC’s conflation of work and play, and I am, but no more so than I’m cynical about any campaign. In fact, there’s something refreshing here about MAC openly acknowledging that beauty isn’t always play. Sometimes it’s work, even if you approach it with a MAC-like sensibility of makeup being about “expression” and play, and the idea of linking their products to heavily styled drudgery serves as an inherent acknowledgement of women’s individually performed beauty labor. (It also makes me wonder what our other manifestations of “weisure” might be telling us about how we choose to spend our supposedly free time. If this collection is a nod the labor of beauty, what does Farmville’s existence signify—a longing to get “back to the land” without leaving the comfort of our sofas? Do the constant check-ins of Foursquare signal our active acceptance of surveillance, to the point where we’ll broadcast our own locations to the world at large?)

The collection itself reflects the message of regulation behind the campaign (which, I suppose, is the entire point): The shades are neutral, tasteful, traditional. No matter how over-the-top the styling of the campaign may be, right below the “fun” retro styling beats an orderly, conservative heart. These shades are office-ready. The model’s pompadour, the monochrome palette, the exaggerated 1960s look: MAC gives us a glamorized version of office work here, which we need in order to want to participate. The company is partially relying upon its reputation as an innovator in the field in order to give us a wink and a nod—you know we’re not really saying you should want to be an office drone, right?

Yet without the products themselves having any subversive qualities (pink blush! taupe eyeshadow! oh my!) it becomes clear what the campaign is: the packaging of a rather boring color collection that still lets us get our kooky side on. That is, it’s doing exactly what marketing is supposed to do—highlighting hopes and fantasies we may have hushed over time, but ultimately just feeding us versions of ourselves.

Beauty Blogosphere 9.21.12

What's going on in beauty this week, from head to toe and everything in between.

From Head...
And yes, the leader's last name is Mullet:
Members of the rogue Amish sect responsible for a spate of hair- and beard-cutting attacks on other Amish people were found guilty of committing hate crimes. Sentencing isn't until January, but the hate-crime classification carries a far stiffer possible sentence than mere assault—decades, perhaps.

...To Toe...


Everything's bigger in Texas: Sarah Hepola's wonderful series examining the beauty rites of Dallas women zeroes in on sky-high heels and how they intersect with the city's car culture.


...And Everything In Between:
Drug war: L'Oréal gets a slap on the wrist from the FDA for making claims about eight of their products that, if accurate, would mean the product should be classified as a drug instead of a cosmetic.

Learning curve: In order to successfully target emerging markets, personal care behemoths must understand not just the product needs of different populations, but the very way societies shop. How to distribute widely and effectively in India when most people buy products at small neighborhood shops instead of large stores?

Avon stalling: The Securities and Exchange Commission has recommended no action be taken in one course of the Avon bribery scandal, in which Avon executives are suspected of bribing Chinese officials when seeking licensure for door-to-door sales. All this recommendation does is suggest that the state needn't investigate whether the company inappropriately contacted analysts during the bribery investigation, so the heat is still very much on Avon—not that that matters to the financial world, which saw a 2% increase in stock valuation directly after the announcement was made.

Certifiable: Retailer Whole Foods will start to independently verify that personal care products claiming to be organic actually are organic. It's a step in the right direction—this is part of what we're talking about with the somewhat meaningless phrase "corporate responsibility," oui?—but I can't help but wonder if this also lets the government off the hook. (Disclosure: In a capacity entirely separate from this blog, I do subcontracted work for the Whole Foods marketing division.)

Hey Mr. Taxman: Salons in northeast England are under review, with the taxman studying records to nab tax evaders. Four other industries are soon to follow. (Ladies first?)

Numbers don't lie: Theoretically, I'm all for transparency about numbers—weight, measurements, etc.—because the longer women safeguard their numbers, the easier it is to feel as though they're "wrong" somehow no matter what. (In practice, it doesn't work for me; anytime I read anyone's weight or numbers it is utterly impossible to not compare it to my own. Alas!) But in what universe is it okay for an interviewer to ask anyone their weight on national television?

Monster stories: Why are we so fascinated with grotesque tales of plastic surgery gone wrong? This lecture raises—and attempts to answer—the question. (Thanks to Elliott for the link!)

About-face: Meet the face-kini—a face covering some Asian women are beginning to wear to protect their faces from sun damage while swimming—which Worn Through considers with their characteristic analysis: "[T]he face-kini does have a resemblance to the balaclava. And while none of the Chinese beach-goers were wearing their face-kinis in support of the Russian punk band, it was an interesting coincidence that news of this new trend broke at the same time that the members of Pussy Riot were sentenced for their anti-Putin protests at the beginning of the year. However, it does serve to highlight just how a single garment can take on intense socio-political meanings in one culture (balaclavas have now become a symbol of political protest in Russia thanks to Pussy Riot), while a similar garment in another culture will not be affected in the slightest."

Layman's terms: The Royal Society of Chemistry makes a strong case for cosmetics scientists as "translators" of chemistry, transforming highly complex concepts and technologies into familiar items non-experts use and appreciate. The writer here focuses on the fragrance industry, putting fragrance marketing in a new light: How else can you translate an invisible product to potential buyers? At best, fragrance marketers are translators of the translators; at worst, they're the epitome of smoke and mirrors.



Well, it's about time: NASA technology finally comes in handy. “Using equipment originally created for the space program, this company is developing a line of very exciting new cosmetic products with biomolecules that are produced in a weightless environment. These advanced, anti-gravity skin care products represent a stunning breakthrough that can’t be reproduced by competitors." But to be clear, NASA is still not developing a nutricosmetic drink, no matter what that vicious aeronautics gossip mill says.

Provoked: Provocative photo of Stephanie Seymour being essentially choked by a male model on the cover of Vogue Homme spurs action among domestic violence activists. But yours truly maintains that it's the "provocative" bit that we should look out for here—has Terry Richardson ever shot a questionable image without knowing that it would boost his name?

Bit of trivia for you: Who was the first American woman to build a cosmetics empire? I hadn't heard of her before but her story is intriguing—involuntary commitment to an insane asylum, and an eventual reinvention of self as an influential journalist.

One-stop shopping: A South Korean department store tracked where cosmetics shoppers went after making a makeup purchase, and found that most women bought things other than clothes for themselves, speculating that cosmetics shoppers and clothes shoppers may have different purchasing psychologies. (Only women in their 40s were likely to go for a beauty-fashion double header, with other age groups going for accessories, children's clothing, or menswear.) Curious whether this would hold up internationally, given that South Korea is the global leader in cosmetic surgery, marking the nation as being outstanding in matters of personal appeaerance.

Beauty bust: Aw, crap, this BeneFit marketing campaign is actually hilarious, making me violate my own rule of steadfastly refusing to enjoy advertising or marketing campaigns. Dammit! Comic Sarah Colonna rides around on a Segway in a police uniform issuing tickets to pedestrians (who seem truly unaware that they're on film) for "beauty busts," like bad false eyelashes and socks with sandals. As AdWeek points out, insulting potential customers is a risky bet—but Colonna makes it work. Anything less than pitch-perfect and this would've been a lead balloon.

Future vision: Diane von Furstenberg demonstrates the Google glasses, which frankly still seem way mysterious, but A) this video helps, and B) it's cool to watch because you adopt the perspective of the glasses wearer. 

Click of the heels: I've fantasized for years about shoes with interchangeable heel heights—and now my dreams are reality! (Too bad I don't like the overall style, but whatever.) Bonus points for anyone who can determine why this shoe is being described as "feminist"? (Thanks to Lindsay for the link.)



Drop stitch: A brief, and sublime, history of the subversive politics of knitting.

The beauty of sobriety: This has made the rounds, and deservedly so—Olivia Singer on the intersection of beauty products, drug abuse, eating disorders, and recovery: "Nothing made me feel closer to my new roommate than when she unpacked a sack of facemasks that rivaled mine—when rather than just talking about how our mutual drug of choice had ravaged our lives, we could talk about how to minimise our pores. Nothing made me feel more like a normal girl than when we all stayed in on a Saturday night watching X-Factor and I could show everyone how to DIY nail art. I was no longer making myself up to hide everything I was ashamed of, because there was less and less to hide."

This is 30: It's a twofer, people: Elizabeth Nolan Brown's delightful This Is 30 features pictures of women who are, well, 30, and Phoebe Maltz Bovy's riff on it is a treat too. "[W]e also want to look young...for reasons not unlike scrappiness oneupmanship, reasons specific to living in a meritocracy. If you've achieved X before you started going gray, or before you noticed those lines on your forehead, then you're basically a child prodigy. For those new at any life stage, there's something amazing about the fact that you do the same thing as that real grown-up over there." 

Kosmetikum: Venusian Glow continues the Beauty Around the World series, this time with Germany. Yeah yeah, plenty of German women don't depilate body hair—but I was surprised to learn that well-cared-for hands are considered essential. Who knew?

Live art: I've seen these incredible live-art pieces before: people painted in distinct artistic styles so that it appears that they're actually created from pointillism or whatever, walking around live and in the flesh. But Kourtney takes it a step further, asking how this is really any different from the ways so many women paint ourselves every day.

Bathing beauties: I am a sucker for old-timey beauty pageant pics, and this collection is a total hoot. Can you imagine a shot being taken today like the one with the winner laying between their fellow contestants' legs? (Thanks to Baze of Beautycism for the link.) 

20 centimeters, for the record: Scratch the above. Can you imagine a world where the distance between beauty pageant contestants' nipples is actually a qualification for entry? Oh wait.

Fat envy: Jumping off from Rebecca DiLiberto's piece in HuffPo, Virginia asks if thin folks secretly envy fat people. This hit home for me—certainly I don't envy fat people the lack of "thin privilege" that I enjoy (I'm not what you'd call thin, but neither do strangers approach me to offer diet suggestions). But the truth is, if I weren't concerned with gaining weight, my food choices would be different. So yeah, why wouldn't I envy people who are able to eat intuitively without undue worry about belly pooch?

For shame: Sally on shame as a motivation for personal change: "[C]onsider carefully how much shame you include in your personal motivational cocktail. Shame often makes for a painful, weak, and unsustainable motivational force." I'd argue that shame is a painful, unsustainable, and very, very strong motivational force—but the end game here is the same: The fire of shame burns quickly.

Data entry: How did I not know about Bratabase before? An expertly designed bra database that can give suggestions for your specific shape and needs. (via Hourglassy)

Lexie Kite, Ph.D. Communications Student and Co-Editor of Beauty Redefined, Salt Lake City

The minute I found Beauty Redefined, I knew I’d found a site to take notice of. Giving active points about media literacy, cultural messages aimed toward women, body image, and beauty ideals, every post on Beauty Redefined went beyond merely stating, Hey, folks, there’s a problem here, instead presenting airtight breakdowns of scripts we might take for granted. More important, the site gives active points for readers on how to begin to reject the messages we’re surrounded with. The Beauty Redefined team also gives one-hour visual presentations to arm viewers with tools and countermessages about harmful media ideals, beauty, and health.

When I learned that the incisive, dedicated, laser-sharp minds behind Beauty Redefined were not only two communication Ph.D. candidates at the University of Utah but also identical twins—well, how could I not want to interview them? Today we have Lexie Kite, whose dissertation focuses on women and self-objectification. (Read the interview with Lindsay, the other half of Beauty Redefined, here.) We talked about internalizing the male gaze, twins as mirrors, and prime-time pornography. In her own words:

Photo by

Matt Clayton Photography

On Self-Objectification

When you grow up in a media-oriented world, like we all have, you grow up with the male gaze: the look of the camera, the look of the spectator viewing the object of the gaze on film. It’s the way the camera pans up and down these bodies, the way the dialogue revolves around that woman. It doesn’t happen with men—it happens with women, for the most part. That has become so normalized that the male gaze is now internalized by women. It’s not even something we question. So what’s happened is that now it’s desirable to not only become the object of the gaze—I mean, we’ve been talking forever about this idea of objectification—but also to be the subject too. To be the one who gazes and the one being gazed upon at the same time.

I think it really comes down to the fact that when we see this many images of women’s bodies signifying sex and power, we are cut down to our bodies—and somehow we begin to believe that’s true. Self-objectification is just the natural next step—the most harmful natural next step. When we are consumers of women, we are consumers of ourselves.

One of the areas where I see self-objectification playing out—and one that I think is so frustrating—is Victoria’s Secret. Five billion dollars a year! It’s powerful. I got interested in the industry of Victoria’s Secret because I was a shopper there; the semi-annual sale was very appealing. But then I’d get those catalogues in my mailbox, and I started seeing images that were pretty jarring. Then I caught wind of the fashion show they have twice a year on CBS, so I looked into how many people are viewing this show, how popular and powerful Victoria’s Secret really is. I found one other scholar who has really talked about this, and the stuff she said about Victoria’s Secret in her own historical and critical analysis was that those images were women’s pornography. Images of women, marketed to women, packaged and sold. It comes right into your home. It’s kind of like the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, in that it’s the most popular, credible sports magazine, and then once a year we get this other thing that is packaged in this way and sits on your coffee table. So you think it’s safe, but it might not be as safe as we think. In terms of Victoria’s Secret, I see that playing out, this idea that it’s just lingerie, but you’re really getting something else.

The Victoria’s Secret mission statement has said that these images are about women feeling good about themselves. They are not for men to look at. But if you look at the images, it couldn’t be anything more than what the male gaze is. It’s as graphic as anything you would see in soft-core porn—it’s just women pulling at their underwear or being naked. They can be completely naked some of the time and they are wearing thongs that say “All-Night Show.” But Victoria’s Secret says this is not for men to look at, this is for you to feel good—and we believe that. Maybe we don’t even think of it as a contradiction, like this is for us to feel good about ourselves, but that says self-objectification to me.

To me self-objectification is the idea of taking some beauty thing—let’s say breast implants—and saying, “This isn’t for men—this is for me to feel good about myself.” I see that as the literal embodiment of self-objectification, internalizing that male gaze so much that you can’t even break apart the fact that being gazed upon is your greatest desire.

You’ve internalized that male gaze, so that’s how you feel good about yourself. It’s crazy stuff. 

On Pain

I was very confident in my abilities in high school—I was class president every year, was nominated for homecoming queen, I was always running assemblies. I was confident in what I could do and what I wanted to say. But somehow I lived this contradiction: I could do a lot, but for some reason I thought I couldn’t be everything that I was supposed to be, and couldn’t look good doing it. That was internalizing the male gaze, right there:I learned that it was all about how I looked and not about what I could do. So I was confident in who I was as a person; it really did just come down to the looks thing. All those messages that I heard from the media were telling me that if I wasn’t hot enough, I wasn’t good enough. And if I wasn’t going to get to that place of feeling like I really was good enough, nobody can. It’s unattainable, and I don’t think I really knew that. You’re never going to be pretty enough. You’re never going to be skinny enough. Because the whole point is that these messages are telling you that you need to be someone you’re not. It creates a void. I didn’t even know that I had that void, not until I took a class on media criticism my freshman year of college. We were looking into pop culture and how powerful those industries are and what kind of messages they are putting out. I felt my heart beat more rapidly because I was hearing stuff that resonated with what I’d come to think about myself in really harmful ways. For the first time I started being able to critically think about the messages I’d heard. They didn’t necessarily pertain to my reality—but I wanted them to so badly.

I’m a body image activist and I’m so passionate about this stuff, but it’s because of the pain I’ve felt. I know that pain brings progress.

I can’t do this work without having been privy to intimately knowing the reason it resonates with people. They feel this pain too. I internalized this gaze, and I didn’t know how to articulate that—maybe that’s just because it’s so normal and so lived. It’s how most of us live our lives. But our research has helped me profoundly. I had been walking through life picturing myself from an outsider’s perspective. I’d taken less time to enjoy what was around me, yet it looks like I’m enjoying what’s around me. That division is so harmful. 

On Being a Twin

Most of us view ourselves from an outsider’s gaze. But I don’t even really know how to think about that, because—maybe it’s the same thing as viewing myself from an outsider’s gaze, but in ways I view myself as being like Lindsay. Lindsay and I are especially hyperaware of competition. We’re such similar people—you know, identical DNA, as similar as you get!—and people put us in competition against each other, in conscious and unconscious ways. In terms of our looks—in terms of everything else too—but it definitely made me aware of my own features and my own looks, because I feel like Lindsay is a reflection of me to the world. I know she feels the same. I feel like I want Lindsay to represent me well. Because Lindsay could easily be me to people; we get called by the wrong name still, even in our own program at school. So I want her to be a good reflection of me. And yeah, that part of me is really aware.

Whenever I’d picture my face, I never thought Lindsay and I looked the same. I know the intricacies of my own face and what makes me different from her. Plus, being twins, people point out that stuff like crazy. So Lindsay looks different to me, but I get how people know we’re twins, especially when I see pictures of us. With the body it’s different.

When we look at ourselves in the mirror we’re kind of seeing this two-dimensional image of our bodies; we’ve never getting the full feel. It’s why when you see a video of yourself it can be intriguing—you want to know what you look like from all those angles. So I can see Lindsay’s body—I can see her from every angle and it’s normal. She’s right there in front of me, in every dimension. It’s sort of a mediation of my mirror image and myself, and I can’t get that body perspective any other way.

And then of course we have identical DNA, and people tell us we look so much alike—so even though I think our faces look different, I can internalize her body as my own. Sometimes I’ve pictured my body how Lindsay’s is; my body image becomes what Lindsay looks like. When her body changes, it can actually change my own image of my body, because she looks how I picture myself. And having someone else sort of be your body image can be a struggle.

My perception of my body image doesn’t have to do with size necessarily. Despite compliments I might get from people, it’s really about what I’m saying to myself. Body image is an internal thing. Lindsay has been able to brush off the negative messages better than I have, despite our similar appearances. To hear Lindsay value herself and not engage in fat talk, and just really refuse to be preoccupied with these notions about our bodies—it’s really helped me, just seeing her be positive.

We don’t talk a lot about our bodies to each other—there isn’t a lot of that “Oh my gosh I feel so gross,” talk, and we don’t even do a lot of building each other up, because we’re such a unit that it feels weird. Like, I would never say, “Linds, you look so good!” I mean, occasionally, but that’s just not my first thing. I’m not going to just go to her and talk about her appearance. I don’t even know how to explain that because I’ve never known it any other way. Twins are weird!

___________________________________

For more interviews on beauty, click here.

Lindsay Kite, Ph.D. Communications Student and Co-Editor of Beauty Redefined, Salt Lake City

The minute I found Beauty Redefined, I knew I’d found a site to take notice of. Giving active points about media literacy, cultural messages aimed toward women, body image, and beauty ideals, every post on Beauty Redefined went beyond merely stating, Hey, folks, there’s a problem here, instead presenting airtight breakdowns of scripts we might take for granted. More important, the site gives active points for readers on how to begin to reject the messages we’re surrounded with. The Beauty Redefined team also gives one-hour visual presentations to arm viewers with tools and countermessages about harmful media ideals, beauty, and health. 

When I learned that the incisive, dedicated, laser-sharp minds behind Beauty Redefined were not only two communication Ph.D. candidates at the University of Utah but also identical twins—well, how could I not want to interview them? Today we have Lindsay Kite, whose dissertation focuses on physical health and the ways media distorts our perceptions of what health and fitness entail—and ways to help people of all ages recognize and reject those harmful messages. (Check back tomorrow for an interview with Lexie, the other half of Beauty Redefined.) We talked about the limitations of academia in applied work, laboring to change beauty ideals as God’s work, and the number-one question she’s asked about being a twin. In her own words:

Photo by

Matt Clayton Photography

On Rapid-Heartbeat Moments

My very first semester of college, I was sitting in a journalism and media criticism class. At that time I didn’t really identify as a feminist or care about media messages. My professor criticized gender and violence and how those messages are perpetuated through the media, and how that affects our lives. When my professor was talking about advertising, particularly in women’s magazines, my heart started racing. I just felt it had affected me so much without me realizing it. It was a happy feeling. It wasn’t a feeling of fear or of, Wow, I’ve been so controlled by this. That was part of it, but I think I recognized there were strategies we could use to combat this. There are real solutions. So from there I was very much a feminist. I’d never quite known that; my mom always was but she didn’t know it either. We didn’t really have the name for it. 

I still take in plenty of media, but to be able to recognize why the women in TV shows and movies look the way they do is liberating in itself, because you have a critical view and recognize that it’s not real, that it’s meant to make me feel a particular way and I don’t have to feel that way if I don’t want to. That’s where the rapid-heartbeat moment came from, this feeling of: Yes, this has affected me, but I don’t have to be affected by it anymore. I don’t have to be brainwashed to believe that this is normal and natural and beauty has always looked this way and men would only want women who looked this way. My heart continues to beat rapidly every time I read books like The Beauty Myth and read scholarly articles about media criticism and feminist work that is trying to counteract these ideals. All these things make my heart beat just as fast and make me feel extremely excited about work that’s happening to liberate women from these restrictive cultural ideals. I love it.

On Accentuating the Positive

It’s a lot easier to criticize things than it is to find concrete actions we can take. It’s easier to get research on how women are affected by certain things—and these are sensational topics. The media likes to focus on dangerous things, the scary big shocking things we hear about women and their bodies and self-esteem and all that. But it’s harder to help people than it is to take apart media, or to take apart the way women feel about themselves. That stuff is easy to document. It’s harder to break out a strategy to combat those feelings and document the way women feel afterward.

If people feel bad about themselves, it’s this normative discontent where basically every woman is unhappy with her body and that’s something we all share, so it’s normal and taken for granted. We need to destabilize that. We need to recognize that this feeling isn’t natural. There are ways to do that; Lexie and I created our one-hour visual presentation for our masters project, showing the ridiculousness of beauty ideals and how money is behind all of it. We need to prove the effectiveness of that, but it’s hard. You try to get approval through review boards at colleges and universities, and that’s mandated by the whole academic system. It’s a process that takes time. So I’m working on how to actually measure the effects of our presentation. It’s hard, but it makes me so happy to see how it is used by other people, for them to rethink the way they think about appearance.

On Being a Twin

Our entire lives, people have been trying to find differences to tell us apart by appearance. So we’ve been picked apart our entire lives by strangers—we’ve received some comments that people don’t recognize are totally insulting to one of us. We’ve gotten really ridiculous comments, like, “You’re the twin who does her hair” or “You’re the twin with straight teeth,” things like that. People think they’re complimenting one of us, but really it means the other one doesn’t have that particular positive attribute. Being compared to your twin sister your whole life can make you a competitive person from day one. It’s led both of us to be like, I don’t want to be the one who gets all the comments from strangers. It’s not fun to be the twin who doesn’t do her hair. 

It’s funny how much I get the exact same twin questions over and over again. The number-one question I get is: When one of you goes on a blind date do you switch in the middle of it? All the time people ask that! I swear they got that from some movie, either the Sweet Valley High kids or Mary Kate and Ashley or even Tia and TameraThat’s where people are forming their questions for us, based on media. The whole twin comparison thing has really contributed to our ideas about appearance and its importance, and how free people feel about commenting on other people’s appearance. 

I just noticed this recently: I don’t necessarily have to look in the mirror to see certain things about myself. I’ll see it in Lexie and just assume I look the same way. I’ll see certain characteristics and think, I never noticed that about myself—but I’m not looking at myself, I’m looking at my sister.

Looking at another face that looks so similar to mine can affect how I would be objective about what I look like. Sometimes I see things on Lexie where she has made a complaint about what she looks like, and I recognize that I look the same way or have that same characteristic, and I’m able to stop and think, Well, I don’t feel that way about it, so there’s no reason that she should. We can keep each other in check and not take certain feelings about features or appearance for granted. I find myself getting offended when she says something rude about herself. Like, if she talks about how she feels so fat, I might feel insulted by that, particularly if at the time I know for a fact she weighs less than me. And I should also turn that the other way around: I should feel more of a responsibility to Lexie to not put myself down. Maybe subconsciously I have—I don’t often say very negative things about myself, just because I’ve found that I feel better about myself when I don’t say mean things out loud.

On Keeping the Faith

Lexie and I are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the church is very against pornography. We view that as something degrading that takes a sacred act between two people who are hopefully in love and hopefully married and causes the people in it to become objectified, dehumanized. So that’s framing our perspective. When we watch TV shows and movies that are just daytime TV—things that are rated PG, PG-13—and we see things that reflect pornography, that’s something that should be eye-catching, but it’s become normal.

We see this normalized pornography all the time, and we’ve become immune to it. We’re numb to seeing women half-naked, or almost completely naked bodies at every turn; it’s not something that’s a big deal. Most of the time the men near the women are fully clothed, and the camera isn’t panning up and down their bodies, zooming in on their parts, and other characters are not necessarily looking at them or commenting on their appearance. If we look at pornography in its strict definition as imagery that is engineered to cause arousal in people, then all of these images of women who are being objectified and stripped for no reason—that’s exactly what they are. We want to help people realize what pornography is—not something that’s acceptable for network TV during the daytime or the Victoria’s Secret runway shows that are a huge moneymaker for a family station like CBS during prime time. It’s not just present on dark corners of the Internet; it’s not something you have to seek out. We have to recognize that in order to escape the harmful consequences it can have on our self-perception and how we view other people. 

My faith has been the driving force behind everything I do related to this work. It’s something that fits in perfectly with my religion. I was actually pretty shocked to figure that out. I thought recognizing gender roles and ways women are held back but men aren’t was going to challenge my faith, but it actually strengthened it. In my religion, we view people as more than just what we are on the surface, more than just bodies. We view people as being able to go on and live forever and have eternal life, not in our own bodies but in a more perfected state. So when we’re so focused in this life on what our bodies look like, that’s actually a huge waste of time and holds people back in every possible way.

Doing service for others is a big part of living a Christ-like life, and when we are so focused on what we look like, that’s actually something pretty selfish—and that’s not helping people who really need help in more ways than we need to fix our hair or do these short-lived things that aren’t really making anyone all that happy. My faith has led me to honestly believe that I can do something to help other women feel better about themselves, so they can then go on and focus on more important things than their looks. If we can get women to accept themselves—and not necessarily just for what life they’re currently living or whatever state they’re in—well, women who feel okay about themselves are much happier and more productive, and they lead more successful lives in any way you want to define it. Beauty obsession stops all of that. 

I believe I’ve been led to this work by God, and as cheesy as that sounds, I really do believe that through his help I’m able to reach other women who are working for liberation from these painful circumstances. Every time I see somebody relay a positive experience of thinking of herself as more than just parts, as a whole person, I get that rapid heartbeat moment. And I think for women who can access that, it’s the happiest form of spiritual experience. As many times as I can help that happen, I will do it.

____________________________________

For more interviews on beauty, click here.

Beauty Blogosphere 9.14.12

What's going on in beauty this week, from head to toe and everything in between.


We've come a long way, baby?

From Head...Masquerade: The invention of the beauty mask—which, charmingly enough, was onceuponatime called a "toilet mask." (via Makeup Museum)



...To Toe...
If the shoe fits: I adore Jane Marie at The Hairpin, and I adore my local cobbler, so when Jane Marie answered a recent question about cobbling, I became happier than anyone really should about cobbling. (Except, perhaps, Daniel Day-Lewis.) Bonus: Video with second-generation cobbler!


...And Everything In Between:
Targeted: Estee Lauder is suing Target in Australia for selling counterfeit MAC products. Not only are the products allegedly not actual MAC products, but Target was never an authorized MAC retailer. Oops! Target is claiming that the products came from a legitimate source in a practice known as parallel importing, in which genuine products are imported from overseas wholesalers, which is legal in Australia.

Behind the scenes: A labor organizer for the garment industry in Bangladesh—which stitches brands like Gap and Tommy Hilfiger—was murdered in April. If you wear clothes, this story is a must-read.

Video killed the magazine star: Through all the fuss about digital media killing off print, Marie Claire UK is merging the two with a limited-edition run of a print magazine that incorporates a Dolce & Gabbana advertisement—in video. When readers turn to page 34, the 45-second spot begins to play. Welcome to the future, folks.

Popeyed: Revlon head Ron Perelman is embroiled in yet another legal battle, this time with art dealer Larry Gagosian. Perelman claims Gagosian cheated him out of millions by undervaluing pieces from his collection, among them Popeye, a Jeff Koons sculpture.

Uncustomary punishment: After she was caught smuggling cosmetics for resale from South Korea without declaring customs duty, a 30-year-old Chinese woman was sentenced to 11 years in prison and fined the equivalent of $78,000. The harsh punishment has drawn criticism: “It’s never easy for people to make some money from hard work. There are so many corrupt officials out there, instead of arresting them, you only target ordinary people," writes a user on Sina Weibo (basically Chinese Twitter). 



Miss Moneymaker: Clumsily translated but engaging article about the popularity of beauty pageants in China—the country sees around 300 a year. Yet it's not necessarily the public or even the participants who want them, but rather marketing teams that pay an average of around $9,400 for endorsements (and event organizers, who can earn up to $1.4 million for their efforts).

Import/export: Korean stores are selling imported products at higher price points than anywhere else in the world, with as much as an eightfold difference in prices from overseas markets. (Comparatively, whiskey is sold at a fivefold increase.) Could this be one reason domestic lines have seen sales increase 37% in recent years? Or, for that matter, why Korean cosmetics sales staffers suffer depression rates of 33%?

Geordie boys: Newcastle men spend more on beauty products than gents from any other county in England, while men in Bristol spend the least on baldness cures. I don't know enough about the connotations of different districts in Britain to decode whether these numbers adhere to stereotypes (like how in the States we stereotype Texan women as having big hair, etc.); any takers?

Here comes the groom: The obvious result from the combination of the uptick in men's grooming and "bridezilla" burnout? Being "groom-ed to perfection."

Welcome to the future: Was just alerted (thanks, Will!) to the existence of fashion based on 3-D printing. Specifically, Continuum, which currently offers jewelry and a bikini from their ready-to-wear (once printed, that is) line, is sort of amazing.

I spy: French researchers have developed a detection system for phthlates, which can contaminate cosmetics even when not a part of the chemical recipe for the actual product. 

Moisturize, moisturize, moisturize!: Apparently "science" has identified three factors within our control that can help us have the most beautiful breasts possible: hormone replacement therapy, not smoking, and daily moisturizing. People, I have never, ever moisturized my breasts—am I alone in this? (Thanks to my aunt Michele for the link!)

Glutenmania: Do people suffering from celiac disease need to avoid gluten-containing cosmetics? The jury is still out.

PETA still sucks, though: Strategic move from PETA in an effort to get Revlon to be transparent about its use of animal testing: buying stock in the company, in hopes that they'll be obligated to reveal information to stockholders. I'd be more jazzed about this if PETA didn't have a long, grody history of degrading women, but hey! Gotta have priorities, right? Ugh.

Like, totally flawsome: There's finally a marketing term for the tactic of showcasing personal "flaws" and incorporating them into feel-good messages for consumers tired of everything seeming perfect in brand-land: flawsome. It's even one of the top 12 consumer trends for 2012, as per trendwatching.com. We shoulda seen this coming, really.

Hostess with the leastest: For the season premiere of The Talk, cohosts and guests went makeup-free. I'm for this, and it was interesting to see the side-by-side comparisons of the hosts' normal makeup compared with their freshly scrubbed faces—but it was sort of disheartening that all but Sara Gilbert said they thought about "cheating." Whatever, transparency is good, right?

Bonus points for John Berger reference: One of the most thoughtful pieces of coverage of no-mirror experiments that I've read. Writes Katrina Onstad at the Globe and Mail, "Escaping one’s own reflection by shrouding mirrors is no small thing: It’s a gesture toward the kind of self-erasure promised by religious deliverance, whatever shape that takes. Maybe it’s particularly Canadian to have flirted with that feeling while spending time in the woods, working or camping. There, far from mirrors, you quickly forget how you look. For days or weeks, you see yourself mostly by the touch of your fingers. And then, upon return, stepping into that first bathroom, there is a startling glance – you, perfect and imperfect, caught in the glass."

Beauty in truth: After hearing from Angelika, whose relationship with the mirror changed after she started seeing herself through a True Mirror—that is, a mirror that reverses your usual reflection so that you're seeing what the rest of the world sees instead of the usual inversion—I'm super-eager to try one of these. One of my reasons for abstaining from mirrors was that I realized upon being told that I had a "mirror face" that the face I saw wasn't what the rest of the world saw—and even though psychically I've sort of come to terms with that, the fact is, looking at yourself in a regular mirror, you are literally the only one who will ever see yourself that way, as Angelika points out in her YouTube video.

Pretty pH princess: Oof, I've gotta eat my words here. I'm not opposed to "pinkifying" fields like science and math in an effort to show girls and young women that there are all kinds of ways to follow what interests you without adhering to stereotypes (of, say, lab rats with bad eyeglasses). But "princess scientists"? (via Sally)


Somewhere, there must be a strain of weed called Mother's Milk, right?

( • ) ( • ): Things that look like boobs that aren't.

Ladies Magdalene: A brief history of the Magdalene Laundries, where "fallen women" in Britain (and, I was surprised to learn, North America and Australia) would be sent for rehabilitation, i.e. imprisonment involving forced labor and abuse. I knew girls labeled as promiscuous could be sent there, but didn't know that girls could be sent there just for being pretty, thus making them more likely to be promiscuous (!)—or too ugly, making them vulnerable to temptation. (The Magdalene Sisters, a 2002 film depicting some of the abuses, is worth watching, despite it underplaying the severity of the conditions. Which, if you've seen the film, is saying something.)

Racy underthings: Lingerie blogger Cora Harrington on a lesser-commented-upon area of little diversity in the lingerie world: race and disability. I'll join my bigger-busted sisters in solidarity (my C cups support you, my G-cupped friends!) when they point out that lingerie ads seem to intentionally leave out large-breasted or full-figured women—but as Harrington points out, representation in this area is far more diverse than race representation. "[T]he sad truth is I can go weeks at a time without coming across a nice photo of a woman of color in lingerie. And if we're talking older women or disabled women, it can be months. The same simply isn't true for fuller-figured or fuller-busted women."

Game over: Danielle of Final Fashion has a juicy new series: Trend Ender, a documentation of trends and their origins, and a loose attempt to predict their demise. First up: topknots.

Owning it: Sally offers a meditation on compliments, examining how compliments angled toward praising stewardship of one's appearance might help ensure that the compliment is heard in the way it's intended. "We cultivate personal style, select our own clothing, and make decisions about how we clothe our bodies. Compliments on personal style and the clothing items we wear are tied to taste and active choices. Someone may say, 'I love that skirt,' but underneath that is, 'and your taste and personal style.'"

Lushthink: Courtney at Those Graces looks beyond the concerted "all-natural" image put forth by Lush and finds some disturbing facts: "My investigation shows that every Lush moisturizer has 3 to 5 ingredients which rank as a Moderate Health Hazard according to the Environmental Working Group." Oof! I'm a fan of Lush; I like their products, and I like that they're one of the few beauty companies that is unafraid to take stands on political issues that might actually alienate some consumers (as opposed to slapping a wholly inoffensive pink ribbon on a jar of face cream and calling it a day). But I don't like that their marketing scheme hinges upon the illusion that these are products your cool friend just whipped up in her kitchen, with no unpronounceable ingredients (like, say, triethanolaine) to muck up their philosophy—despite that not actually being the case.

Why I Had My Body Spray-Painted Brown, Plus My Advertorial Policy

It was the spray tan that did me in.

See, the minute you have the word beauty in your blog’s metadata, the Marketing Powers That Be descend upon you with offers of free samples for your review. Lotions, polishes, tonics, scrubs, glosses, serums, creams—if it’s in a bottle and designed to perform miracles, its press release may find its way to my inbox.

The first time I received an offer for some review samples, maybe four months into my blogging venture, my knee-jerk reaction was hell no. Through my years in ladymags, I’d become cynical not only of the “advertorial” function of beauty pages, but of the products themselves. The first few times you see an entire bin filled with fifty-plus types of blush, it’s exciting, but after a bit you begin to realize that it’s all just packaged petroleums and tints and talcs, and that the item you’d been paying $8.99 (or $26, or $56) for is actually just worth pennies, and that for the most part there isn’t really that much difference between the products. (The number-one question beauty editors are asked is, “But what really works?” Yes, there are some that do, but that’s another post.)

So the lure of free products didn’t hold much sway over me; I still have a handful of unopened products from various beauty sales over the years. More important, I prided myself on not falling into the advertorial trap: No, I was not going to give companies free advertising—that is, my time and labor—in exchange for a prettily packaged batch of titanium dioxide. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, but A) there are plenty of product review blogs already, and I have nothing to add to the chorus except SEO bumps for the companies; B) that’s not what this blog is about, and in fact when trying to explain what I do here, the first words out of my mouth are usually something like, “It’s a beauty blog, but not, like, lipstick reviews”; and C) after years of working in ladymags, I’ll be damned if my passion project—for which I receive the occasional stipend from my syndication with The New Inquiry but which otherwise isn’t monetized in any way—was under the sway of anything other than my editorial judgment. I decided long ago to not have advertising or sponsors for this reason—even from companies and organizations I think do good work.

Yet the product offers keep coming. Sometimes, in the case of particularly hilarious-sounding products, I’ll fantastize about accepting and then ripping the product to shreds. But honestly, I don’t get my jollies from thinking of clever quips about silly products—and since my reader base is healthy but not enormous, I’m being targeted by a lot of startups and beginner companies, and I have little interest in mocking them. (Plus, I think most companies subscribe to the “no such thing as bad publicity” line of thinking. I mean, have they read a single entry of mine? I’m more likely to write a 2,400-word screed on “the secret language of toner” or some shit than I am to just be like, “Pores smaller!”)

And then came the spray tan.

See, I was a sun-shunner for my entire adult life, until a trip to the tropics in 2009 turned me into a full-fledged worshipper. I discovered that not only was it easy for me to develop a light tan, but that I liked how I looked with a tan; once my natural color faded I spent a small fortune on self-tanning lotion. This year I developed a sensitivity to the formula (it makes me itch most unbecomingly); around the same time, I adopted a semi-nihilist attitude that made me realize I had little interest in living past age 80 or so, and decided to hell with it, I’m going to get as much sun as I can, skin cancer risk be damned. (Lecture me all you want; I’ll readily admit you’re right, and will continue to wear SPF 4 regardless.)

Accordingly, I had a tanned summer—but now that beach time has faded, so has my color, and I’m not quite ready to give it up. I knew about airbrush tanning, but am way too frugal to spend the $60 to $90 it takes to get one—plus, the thought of paying a stranger to essentially spray-paint my body brown seemed...I mean, when you think about it, it’s uncomfortably close to those “believe it or not” historical tidbits, like how Romans were supposedly bulimic with their vomitoriums. (Which, by the way, they weren't.)

So when the invitation to “meet Kelly and get a B. Bronz Sunless Tanning Treatment” showed up in my inbox (something to do with Fashion Week?), I deleted it at first, as I do all such invitations and offers, no matter how much the product promises to “dazzle” my readers. But it stuck in my mind. I found myself getting sort of huffy over my own policies, like, Hey, why shouldn’t I be getting the occasional swag? I work hard! Harder than I did in magazines, when I could buddy up to the beauty editors and waltz out of the closet with a lifetime supply of conditioner! You know who pays this blogger's salary? Me! And I’m cheap! And I abuse my staff! And if I weren’t such a rotten boss I might have gone to the beach even more this summer and might have a deeper tan and I wouldn’t even need this body spray-paint thing in the first place, so take that!

I said yes.

I did my homework beforehand; I knew you were supposed to exfoliate and not use any body products so that the tanning agent would be able to better sink in. I also knew you weren’t supposed to sweat for 8 to 12 hours afterward, which might be fine if one’s body is spray-painted in the Helsinki twilight but is more difficult in the recent spate of 90% humidity we subtropical New Yorkers sweat our way through.

I showed up at the spa that was hosting the event and was ushered into the treatment room, where I did indeed meet Kelly, a polished, gracious woman in flowing jersey who looked far less...fake?...than I’d expected from someone who paints people brown for her trade. Actually, as it turns out, Kelly is both artist and chemist: She created the B. Bronz line, which is available both for professional and home use and, from what I saw on the bottles, comes in fragrances like “Citrus Mojito,” which surely is far more appealing than the lingering scent of yo, you just dyed your body brown that I’m all too familiar with from my usual sunless lotion, which shall remain nameless (see paragraph 5). Kelly has the distinction of having tanned members of the National Bodybuilding Association, the San Francisco 49ers Gold Rush Cheerleaders, and the Oregon Ducks Cheerleaders (my alma mater! also, it is impossible to get a natural tan in Eugene, Oregon), as well as Miss Washington, Miss Oregon, Miss Michigan, and Miss California. If I was going to have someone spray-paint my body, I may as well go to the best.

At her behest, I stepped into what resembled a lightweight tent and undressed while Kelly finished spray-painting another blogger’s body. Upon her return, Kelly directed me into various positions—to the right, to the left, leg extended to spray the inner thigh, arms lifted to get my ribcage—while she answered my handful of measly questions that I’d hoped would mask the fact that I’m not really a “beauty writer” at all but rather a cynic who might refer to airbrush tanning as having your body spray-painted brown. Kelly appeased me there too: When I asked about the function of the bronzer as opposed to the actual tanning agent that would keep me golden for about four days, she candidly replied that the bronzer was in the formula “so that the customer feels like she’s paid for something.” Without the bronzer, clients would leave no darker than when they entered, since the tanning agent takes 8 to 12 hours to fully develop. (There’s also a clear, bronzer-less formula available for clients whose supreme faith in the art of the spray tan means that they don’t need to feel like they stood naked in a tent while a stranger hosed them down with brown dye for no immediate effect.)

I’d been trying to look Kelly in the eye to telegraph how terrifically secure I was standing almost entirely naked in front of a stranger, but at a certain point I looked down at my arm and saw that it was a gorgeous golden hue, more glowing and vibrant than how I look when I’ve actually been sunbathing. “It’s gorgeous!” I exclaimed, and I meant it, and Kelly smiled before she frowned and started dabbing my cleavage with a towel. “You’re sweating a little,” she said, “so this was getting...funky.” I looked down and saw that my chest looked like someone had splattered coffee across it, brown beads dripping between my breasts.

I stood there trying very very hard not to sweat, while my body dried off for a couple of minutes until Kelly gave me her blessing to get dressed. Which was nice, except then I’d have to exit the cool spa and enter the world of 90% humidity, which I feared meant my entire body would soon look the way my cleavage did. In the subway—possibly the most humid place in New York City save the Tenth Street Russian & Turkish Baths—I stood in the darkest place possible while fanning myself with B. Bronz literature and rubbing my face with a tissue in hopes of at least evening out the sweaty brown beads of body dye that were surely forming there. I studiously avoided eye contact once on the train, hoping to avoid the humiliation of others witnessing me turning into a live Jackson Pollock painting—good thing, too, because when I got up I saw that I’d left a trail of brown drops across the back of the seat.

Having lost all dignity, I made a beeline for home and raced to the mirror, where it turned out that it was only my back and chest that had become mottled (and which was easily taken care of by rubbing in the solution). The rest of me, including my face, had a soft tan glow. Throughout the day, the tone became richer and deeper—though when I took a shower after the prescribed length of time and rinsed off the bronzer, I was left with a golden hue closer to what I’d first seen when Kelly sprayed me in the tent. It lasted for about four days; I can still faintly see the “tan” lines from where my underwear was but it’s barely noticeable.


Forgive the sports bra shot; I already had a light tan on my upper body but my stomach hasn't seen the sun since 1979, so here's the color the spray-paint—ahem, airbrush tan—gives unsunned skin.

All this is to say: It was absolutely fine. Given that there is now a seat on the Q train with a spatter of brown liquid gifted from my body to the MTA, I can’t quite fully sign on to the B. Bronz statement—“The B.Bronz Sunless Tanning Treatment is designed to be applied flawlessly in less than two minutes, and there is no mess, residue, or rub-off, which is perfect for Fashion Weeks' high demands”—but that’s my own damn fault for daring to sweat before the 8 hours were up, right? If you’re someone who would spend money on having a stranger spray-paint your body brown, the B. Bronz line is more than adequate; I’ve seen some airbrush jobs look hideous the same day, while this looked nice and natural even at its darkest.

All this, really, is to say: Thank you, B. Bronz, for the free airbrush tan, which was perfectly nice. And thank you, readers, for allowing me a forum where I can write about beauty without feeling like I need to write about airbrush tans, even the perfectly nice ones—because in attempting to write about it today I find that I don’t know how to do so without swallowing my voice. Which is the opposite of the reason I write here. 

The Standardized No. 2 Pencil Test

The pencil test: Measuring bra needs and "breast ptosis" since the invention of the American teenager.

Among things I have done at various points in my life to determine whether I possess certain attributes of beauty: put coins between my ankles, calves, and knees (“ideal” legs meet at these three places), lain a ruler from my ribcage to my pelvic bone to see if the ruler touches my belly flesh (suggested by Glamour magazine to determine whether my stomach needs slimming), measured the distance between my eyes (it “should” be equidistant to the length of one eye), evaluated the amount of eye white showing under my irises (as inspired by the book You Are All Sanpaku), walked in wet sand and then seen how close together my right and left footsteps fell (“try walking with your feet closer together for a sexy sway!”), and traced my face shape with lipstick onto a mirror to determine whether my face was round, oval, rectanglular, or diamond-shaped.

But there’s one test that puts all the others into sharp relief. Several years ago, I found myself putting a pencil underneath my breast to determine whether I was “sagging,” a tip I’d read somewhere online (if it’s online it’s true!). As I—an adult woman with a modicum of dignity—stood there, putting a pencil underneath my breast to see if it stayed put and thus marking me as sagging I remembered I’d done this before. Except that time, I was 11, and inspired by a tidbit in a lesser teen novel, I was placing a pencil underneath my breast in the hopes that it would stay put, because that would mean I was developed enough to graduate to a real bra from the training bra I'd donned since fourth grade.

It doesn’t take a degree in women’s studies to see the problem here, right? Double bind, damned if you do, no way to win, blah blah? And yes, I get that a 13-year-old and a 33-year-old have different concerns about their breasts. It’s the idea that there’s a “test” to determine something aesthetic about our bodies that rankles me. Historically, the point of the standardized test—which is exactly what these beauty tests are—has been not so much to determine any one person’s score but rather to divide people into categories. Those who pass and those who fail; or, more subtly, those whose performance indicates certain strengths (as in aptitude for civic service) or weaknesses. And these tests haven’t been designed for the benefit of the test takers, but rather the test adjudicators, for assessing tests based on a strict template is far easier than assessing them based on individual gifts and streaks of potential.

I won’t belabor the point here but it needs to be said plainly: Beauty cannot be assessed with a standardized test. I’m not trying to make some “everybody is beautiful” argument or say that there aren’t certain characteristics (or people) that we tend to find more beautiful than others; I’m just looking at the very nature of beauty—which is about bringing pleasure and enchantment to the viewer—and seeing its inherent incompatibility with the idea of standardization. There are few questions surrounding beauty that have strict, easily ticked yes/no answers. Beauty is the essay portion of the test, not the multiple choice.

Of course, one could say the same of the concept of personality (and I’d agree), but that hasn’t stopped us from developing personality tests. Myers-Briggs, enneagrams, the Big Five, the Keirsey Temperament Sorter—we love them, we given them enormous credence in our society in everything from relationships to employment, and yet they’re designed to measure what makes us us. I love personality tests, don’t get me wrong (we ENFPs are open-minded that way), but neither was I surprised to learn that they have a long association with eugenics. (After all, physiognomy was a sort of personality test of its day, and it’s not hard to see the eugenics connection there.) Add in the connection between beauty pageants and eugenics, and suddenly these harmless little tests performed at junior high slumber parties begin to seem nefarious. I’m not trying to say that girls putting coins between their knees is equivalent to Nazis using calipers to measure Jewish people's noses, but we’re talking about dividing people based solely on whether parts of their bodies meet specific physical qualifications. It’s not reaching to find a connection here. (Let’s also forget that, by and large, the qualifications in question are those one cannot change. I’m not particularly busty but “passed” the pencil test at age 11—which of course meant that as I’ve matured, I certainly “failed” it.)

To be clear, I don’t think anyone doing these tests—or the minds that designed them—is thinking in terms of creating a more beautiful human race when releasing these tests into the world. More likely, any girl measuring the distance between her eyes or putting pencils underneath her breast is just performing her own experiment, for much the same reason we’re fascinated by the science of beauty: We want to quantify the unquantifiable. (I suspect this is one reason some sex workers join the industry, and why it’s a common fantasy as well, something writer and prostitute Charlotte Shane addresses nicely here.) It’s a losing battle, of course: Remember that even Florence Colgate, determined to have Britain’s most mathematically beautiful face, had her facial symmetry qualified with the word almost. And remember too that in the contest that crowned Colgate as almost perfect, entrants who had plastic surgery were disqualified. It’s not only perfection that counts; it’s natural perfection. In other words, beauty tests are a pass/fail system with nothing in it for the losers. What are any of us at the magic age of 30 supposed to do when we cross from passing the pencil test to failing it?

Beauty Blogosphere 9.7.12

What's going on in beauty this week, from head to toe and everything in between.




From Head...
Fifty shades: Loving reading the responses to this poll about attitudes toward coloring gray hair. (As a brunette, I'm looking forward to having gray hair but not so much to having graying hair, so once it starts for real, I have no problems dyeing it. Then I will go on a fabulous journey for six months and reemerge into society with a cap of shining gray, thus shocking EVERYONE. Your plan, whether current or future?)


...To Toe...
Pedicures in the news: Life in the Philippines began to return to normal after a 7.6 magnitude earthquake prompted a tsunami warning, as shown by this striking photo of a woman on Samar Island receiving a pedicure.


...And Everything In Between:
Getting lippy: Finally! Someone willing to call BS on the lipstick index. I mean, this economic indicator is a nice idea...but neither does it deserve the hype it's gotten, especially since IT MIGHT NOT EXIST. Still, note how ABC News still can't leave it alone—despite the news hook here being that the lipstick index may not be true at all, the headline reads, "Is the Lipstick Effect Rooted in Evolutionary Psychology?" (Not to say I told you so, but...)

Revlon rhetoric: Ad Age profile of Revlon's chief marketing officer that would be telling of how the company views its role in women's lives, if it weren't in code: "The one segment we know we appeal to the most is women we call colorful and complex. They're the largest and the most underserved segment. They tend to express themselves more. They want to wear more makeup. They wear more makeup in more circumstances and therefore are the least satisfied." This makes no sense to me! I want to know more about this "colorful and complex" woman (as opposed to, what, monochrome and simple-minded?). I wish I were fluent in marketingspeak. Semi-related: Revlon is cutting 250 jobs in a bid to streamline operations. Good thing we know the lipstick index is bullshit, or this might feel like more of a blow!

Katie Holmes to be new face of Bobbi Brown: Fell asleep typing that.

"...you can be beautiful too": Americans and other rich folks aren't buying enough Pantene shampoo, so now Procter & Gamble has developed an extra-special Pantene shampoo to save our national locks. And if their coffers get richer, well, so be it!

Yes, they work: Y'all know I'm skeptical about "best-of" beauty product lists, right? Yet I'm linking to this one from the Good Housekeeping Institute, because the team there has some pretty rigorous protocol and procedures (as opposed to 19-year-old interns trying neck creams, not that I've seen that happen in the ladymag biz or nothin').


Boss ladies: Continuing to love the Corporate Curves Report, which examines the intersection between "professional" wear and feminine fashion (even as I disagree with the idea that not dressing in a conventionally feminine manner means we're dressing "like men," but that's a minor quibble). This week: Finnish politicians who are rocking some curve-conscious clothes.





Perestroika princess: Soviet beauty queens. The images themselves are interesting enough, but it's more fascinating conceptually—the idea of beauty pageants didn't catch on in the Soviet Union until reform was imminent, and in fact they became an emblem of perestroika itself. I'm intrigued by the idea that in a culture that supposedly had eradicated sexism (ha! ha ha ha. Ha), the objectification of women's bodies was seen as progress toward a more open society. (If you're interested in this relationship, pick up Slavenka Drakulic's How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed.)

Dethroned: Like at least 20% of South Korean women, Miss South Korea has had some cosmetic procedures done—and boy, are some people pissed, calling her crowning "an infringement of the rules" because she wasn't born a conventional beauty. Given the enormous popularity of plastic surgery in the nation (which ranks first in per capita cosmetic surgery), it seems like there's maybe something else at work here besides just upturned noses at the idea. (If that seems dramatic, take it from this blogger: "Those who go through [plastic surgery] deceive people with their looks, a man will marry a woman thinking that her beauty is natural only to realize that his wife gives birth to an ugly child. Then what?") (Thanks to Aaron Bady for the link.)

Booby trap: Salon owner in East Texas sentenced to 18 years in prison for giving illegal cosmetic breast injections.

Ich bin ein Supermodel: Remember when that German magazine stopped using professional models, vowing to only use non-pro women in their pages? Yeah, didn't work out so good. I appreciate the idea behind this, but also: Look, modeling is, among other things, a skill. I'd be a godawful model, not only because I'm 5'7" and thick in the middle but because I'm uncomfortable in front of a still camera and it shows. Devaluing labor by basically saying any old gal can do it isn't the solution, just as banning photo retouching does little to address the root concerns it's meant to address. What the solution is, I don't know. Glad Brigitte tried; unsurprised it failed.

Afro punk'd: I'm with Baze: These hair and makeup looks snapped at AfroPunk are awesome.

"It's not my fault I'm pretty": As the writer herself says of this piece on street harassment—which, shared among women talking, would be just another story that every other woman present would nod about before sharing her own tale—the point of sharing stories like this is so that "[w]hen people (men) want to talk about 'legitimate' forms of assault, tell girls they should be nice to strangers and give men the benefit of a doubt, tell them to consider it a compliment, tell them to ignore the bad behavior of men, I want them to be forced to feel, for even one minute, what it feels like to have so much verbal hatred and physical intimidation thrown at them for nothing more than being female and not wanting to share."

Gallery gall: Sarah Nicole Prickett on Bravo's new Gallery Girls: "If your job is to be young, to be pretty and thin, to pose for long hours on a white background next to luxury objects—what, then, are you? A model? Or a woman entering the art world? ... Boys, pretty boys, work in galleries too, but there are not so many that one could imagine a show called Gallery Boys. Does this matter? Yes, when the ratio of males to females working at floor level is inverted at the top, it matters. Only three (!!!) of the 270 highest-auctioning works in the world between 2008 and 2011 were made by women. The other 267 (I don’t have enough exclamation points) were made by men."

Roundup roundup: Jonesing for more beauty links? Check out Wild Beauty, a blog from makeup artist Meli Pennington, stat, whose commentary is sharp, feminist, and always on-point. I'm also finding myself culling links more and more from Makeup Museum, Final Fashion, and Venusian Glow—some fine curation all around.

The medium is the message: Famous works of art, done en maquillage. (via Makeup Museum)

Mode-sty?: Totally down with the idea behind this new Minneapolis-based fashion line aimed toward women who want to look chic and elegant without revealing too much. But also totally with naming expert Nancy Friedman in raising my eyebrows at the unfortunate name choice.

Beauty is as ugly does: From Scientific American: "Beauty does not occupy a different area of the brain than ugliness." The idea is that emotions and responses to those emotions lie on a continuum on the same neural circuitry, so reactions that feel contradictory (as with being fascinated with ugliness, I presume?) are actually on the same spectrum. (via Jessica Stanley)

"It's not just about feeling beautiful": Kate's post title speaks for itself: The Extreme Importance of Letting Yourself Be Occasionally Ugly.

Vote, bitch!: Attention Breaking Bad fans: Katie Connor, magazine colleague and friend of The Beheld, is in the final round of New York magazine's Breaking Bad character lookalike contest for her fantastic Walter White. Plus, she's the only lady in the final five. Won't you take a moment and vote for her?

Beauty Blogosphere 8.31.12

What's going on in beauty this week, from head to toe and everything in between.

(via)

From Head...  
Water wigs: Click through, trust me.


...To Toe... 
Know thine enemy: We can all agree that PUA—that's pickup artist, in case you've had the good fortune to remain unawares until now—tactics are grody gross gross, but reading this sad little forum thread about whether or not to get a pedicure sort of puts it in perspective. PUAs aren't threats in the least! They're just sad, with gnarly feet. 


...And Everything In Between:  
Hellboy: Revlon controlling shareholder Ron Perelman got his way this week when a federal judge dismissed a suit filed by his estranged brother alleging that Perelman improperly used pension proceeds to finance Revlon. Also, disappointingly, Ron Perelman and Ron Perlman are two separate people.

It's P&G time, kids: Procter & Gamble CEO takes a pay cut of 6.1%, leaving him with a Cratchit-esque $15.2 million annual pay. C'mon folks, buy more Pantene! Daddy needs a new pair of shoes! But in sunnier P&G news, two board members were listed in the Forbes 100 list of powerful women. (The company actually has good gender representation on their board, a nice change of pace.)

Catwalked: This list of the world's 20 richest supermodels is interesting enough in an Us Weekly sort of way, but what made me include it here is the smirk of satisfaction that crossed my face when I realized that the vast majority of these women have been public figures for at least 15 years. We may think of modeling as a young woman's game—and, to be clear, it is—but part of the "winner take all" schema of the way modeling works seems to include financial growth with age and planning. 

Woman Up!: The bad news: There's a "Woman Up Pavilion" at the Republican National Convention where women can get their hair done while boys do boy things like talk snips, snails, and gross domestic product. The good news: It's empty. (Thanks to Caitlin for the link.)

Beauty OD: Keep an eye out for Beauty in Coma, a documentary about cosmetics overuse in Iran. It's unclear if the "overuse" refers to physical problems resulting from toxic products or social and psychological repercussions of relying upon makeup, but either way I'm glad to see this addressed outside of the western world.  

Two great bits of street harassment art: Hijabi to the rescue graffiti, and a stereotype-inversion cartoon. (I'm almost afraid to publicly like this cartoon, for fear that a certain strain of dude would then come up with a variation of "nice stitching!" as an alternate pickup line, but whatever, it's funny!)  

Hot new look: A group of scientists have developed flame-proof makeup, designed for firefighters and soldiers at risk for being exposed to explosive blasts, which can emit temperatures as high as 1,1112 degrees Fahrenheit. It incorporates DEET (which is flammable), is waterproof, comes in camouflage colors, and is non-irritating to eyes and mouth, all of which makes it seem like it's ready to hit the consumer market: "Ballistic with new Si-O-Si silicone bonds goes from day to night in a flash!" (Thanks to Rahel for the link.)

Stop the press!: Obama deems women worthy of talking to! The news that the U.S. president agreed to give an interview to Glamour magazine spurred ribs about how he's focusing on trivial concerns. Because you know us girls! We don't care none 'bout politickin' so long as our hair is shiny! (Seriously, when Glamour does these interviews they know better than to ask about boxers vs. briefs. The magazine has been shying away from its once-admirable news content as of late, which is a real pity, but it's good to see that they're staying on-task for the election.) (Thanks to Lindsay for the link.)



Primate primer: If more writing "for men" were like Levitate the Primate: Handjobs, Internet Dating, and Other Issues for Men, a newly released collection of essays from former Nerve columnist Michael Thomsen, I daresay I'd be far better able to handle "men's magazines"—and women's magazines too, for that matter, because the two exist in tandem. On being asked by his date to flex: "It's the introduction of someone else's gaze that inspired...an impulse to commodify yourself, to be desirable, to feel the dislocated pleasure of becoming an object in someone else's eyes. That desire can become quanitified, reduced into a hazy disillation of self-worth. It's a way of putting the burden down for a few moments, to let the weight of your own body be buoyed up by the admiring look of someone down below." Never before has an essay titled "Come on My Face" stirred emotion within me, but then again, finding essays of such candor and nuance is rare. If you enjoy personal essays, this book mustn't be overlooked.

You know, for girls!: Nothing to do with beauty, but judging from the number of people who sent me this link to Amazon reviews of Bic pens "for Her," it fits here anyway. Hilarious! (via everyone)

Photoshopped: Excellent opinion piece that articulates part of why I'm hesitant to jump whole hog onto the bandwagon of anti-retouching activism. Of course I'm not giving the thumbs-up to the massive distortion of bodies that retouching perpetrates, but like the writer of this piece, I can't help but wonder: "In trying to fell only the parts of the tree that we can see, are we falling prey to a clever campaign of distractivism by industry players keen to keep things as they are while appearing to support progressive policies?"

What makes a woman look powerful?: Darlene at Campbell and Kate (a boutique company of button-down shirts designed for large-breasted women) examines visible signals of power and femininity via a look at the Forbes 100 Most Powerful Women list. It's a difficult issue: When showcasing a list of powerful women, what images should you use? It seems that Forbes took a purposefully desexualized angle, which certainly provides a respite from the idea that success isn't a shield against having to look sexy at all times. At the same time, the images chosen make it clear that we still have a hard time pairing conventional femininity with power. For more on this, check out some musings over at Feminist Philosophers about a "pinkified" cartoon of a lady scientist. (And for more on the trendified spate of made-up words with -ify endings, read Nancy Friedman.)

On permanent depilation: It took Kate's assertion to make me realize this, but I, too, want old woman pubic hair.

Mary Kay manipulation: One of the criticisms Virginia Sole-Smith ran into after publishing her excellent exposé in Harper's about Mary Kay profiteering was that she believed women who signed up for the direct sales scheme were, well, stupid. In this op-ed piece, she makes clear not only that that's not the case, but that in order for the program to work as well as it does, Mary Kay needs to speak directly to the needs of its potential workforce, promising flexible hours and maximized profits. In other words: Mary Kay wouldn't work if it counted on suckers; instead, it manipulates legitimate concerns of female workers for its own benefit.

Biden Bergamot Body Butter: Bliss releases a limited-edition election product pair: orange-scented O-bama lotion, and Mint Romney lotion. I've tried to think about why this makes my skin crawl a little and am coming up empty. Could it be the commodification of democracy, the refusal to actually treat politics as something one could have a stake in instead of as an opportunity to earn a little cash, the trickle of dread that creeps down my spine when I think about Romney voters picking up the pair of lotions after a $500 face treatment for a laugh? Or do I just think it's a bad pun?

20 Irrational But Nonetheless Persistent Beauty Fears I’ve Picked Up From My Time as a Female Human Being: "If I forget to wear bronzer, I’ll look like Powder."


 
You can't see it, but I'm playing footsie with Dr. Nancy Snyderman. 

Mirror mirror: If you missed my appearance on the Today show this week (what, you were sleeping at 8:10 on a Monday?), you can catch it online here. I'm still thinking about some of the dialogue that went on during my five minutes of fame—namely why despite me not saying a word about feeling critical about the way I look, the segment turned into a discussion of our "hate relationship with the mirror" and how to find "self-compassion"—but for now, I'll simply point you to this Jezebel piece about why some might be hesitant about the idea of abstaining from the mirror. I also like this column from Rebecca Kamm at the New Zealand Herald, one of of the few pieces that addresses something within mirror abstinence besides self-esteem.

What a fox: When writer Liza Mundy was slathered with blue eyeshadow before her appearance on Fox News, she was taken aback; other news shows had done her makeup, sure, but not like this. And for us, the result is a report on the network's "Fox glam" look, though the entire practice of making over "real women" (not just anchors) gets a nice review here too. (Thanks to Nathan for the link.)

That hoodoo that you do: Fascinating entry at Vintage Powder Room stemming from Lucky face powder, an early midcentury cosmetic designed for women of color. It's not just to blot oil; it was a tool of hoodoo, or conjure, a folk magic practiced in the southeast United States.

"That girl needs to be fucked": Devastating, crucial piece from Evelyn Hampton on language—specifically the language we use to describe women—can leave a psychic stain. "Language has a force. It has the power to change how we behave. How we move and use our bodies. Language has the power to change our bodies. Language is how concepts move and change. Concepts are the screen through which we see and believe. But a lot of the time we make a mistake: we mistake the concepts for reality."

Awesome people hanging out together: I don't normally get too fangirl, even about public figures I adore, but every so often I can't help it, and this is one of those times: John Berger drawing Tilda Swinton.

Manic pixie dream you: Lauren Wilford gives the best take on Manic Pixie Dream Girls that I've read yet, given in the guise of an ersatz review of Zoe Kazan's Ruby Sparks. "It’s easy to take aim at the ways that women are physically objectified in gossip and fashion magazines, in pornography. Idealization is a much sneakier enemy, because it masquerades as something benevolent: see, we’re thinking well of women, we’re raising them up. And the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is sneakier yet, because it hides its idealization in stacks of pretty imperfections. But all of these things serve to define women by ideas and images in the minds of others—in the minds of men, even men who claim to love them—rather than by their own thoughts, feelings, and actions. They reduce. They dehumanize." Rarely have I seen someone look so squarely at the idea of women idealizing their own tropes, something that strikes me as ever more insidious about the MPDG stereotype than the indie-arty dudes lollygagging about. (Bonus points for connecting the phenomenon to mirror abstinence!)

Doing the math: In one of the more ill-conceived portion-control charts I've seen, Lauren Conrad's team suggests using beauty products as a guide to portion control. Your salad should be the size of a shower scrubbie, your pasta should be the size of a compact, and your fruit bowl should be the size of two large magenta vibrating eggs.

Mannequin: I love this story from the mother of Rags Against the Machine blogger Terri, about making her own dress form for her wedding gown in 1953.

The Beheld 101

Greetings! If you’re here after seeing me on the Today show (U.S.) or Sunrise (Australia): Thank you for visiting The Beheld! More information about my mirror fasting can be found here; you should also check out Mirror Mirror Off the Wall by Kjerstin Gruys, who went an entire year without looking in the mirror and is currently writing a book about the experience.

The public focus on mirror fasting has zeroed in on how the exercise changes our perspective on appearance. And, of course, that’s part of what my mirror fast did for me. But for me, something that was more important than either trying to feel better about my appearance—or to mute vanity—was to sever the observation loop.

As art critic John Berger wrote in Ways of Seeing, “Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves. The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object—and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.” I wanted to know what would happen if I stunted my ability to turn myself into “a sight”; if, instead of the chronically heightened awareness of the way I appear, I could tap into … well, I wasn’t entirely sure what I would wind up tapping into. That is why I did the mirror fast. Altering the way I thought about myself was part of it, yes, but all roads here lead to the complexities of self-observation.

While you’re here, please check out some of my other projects and writings from this blog. The Beheld is on Twitter and Facebook, and is also syndicated at The New Inquiry, which hosts a full roster of top-notch bloggers.

Interviews: Long-form interviews from women with unique perspectives on beauty, ranging from cosmetologists and photographers and artists to nuns and bodybuilders and morticians.

Thoughts on a Word: What do we mean when we say a woman is cute as opposed to attractive? Gorgeous instead of a bombshell? Sexy instead of glamorous? By examining etymology, history, and usage, I consider words commonly used to describe women’s appearance.

Beauty Blogosphere: My Friday roundups feature what I consider "beauty news." Instead of focusing on products, I curate links that span the worlds of business, academia, international news, health, women's media, social activism—and, as ever, the blogosphere itself.

Personal essays
     • For Helen Gurley Brown
     • For Elizabeth Taylor
     • For Janis Joplin
     • For Anne Frank

Beauty Blogosphere 8.24.12

Note: My appearance on the Today show has been rescheduled for Monday morning, but since the Today show covers news, that can change at any minute. 

What's going on in beauty this week, from head to toe and everything in between.

Instead of plucking collagen from liposucted thighs, let's take it from the menace of the sea!

From Head...
Fruits of the sea: Newest skin-care source: jellyfish! (Raise your hand if the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the word jellyfish is Starring Sally J. Freedman as Herself. Anyone?)


...To Toe...
Political pedicure: Okay, I know I swore off "dudes get pedicures too!" for this section, but since the dude in question actually elaborated on his tootsies I think this gets a pass. So: Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, gets pedicures. Ta-da! More important: Cory Booker's people must be pretty phenomenal. How many other mayors of towns under populations of 300,000 would you recognize? Mayor as brand. Mostly because he's cute? 



...And Everything In Between:
To fight that unbeatable foe!: Breathe deeply! Dr. Bronner's lawsuit against a number of competing companies, including Hain Celestials and Kiss My Face, has been dismissed. The everevolving Eternal Company of Dr. Bronner's claimed that the competitors were not living up to the almighty, ever-loving standards of the word organic! But a California district court threw it out, knowing that Absolute teamwork fertilizes God's Earth! ALL-ONE! ALL-ONE! Great love, song speech & Profitsharing. Health is Wealth! 


You wax his back, he'll scratch yours: Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) met with beauty industry insiders last week to talk the Small Business Tax Equalization and Compliance Act, which is of interest to salons since it would give salon owners dollar-for-dollar tax credit on FICA taxes on employee tips.

Lush politics: Lush does it again, backing a truly controversial cause instead of merely hiding behind pink ribbons: It's campaigning on behalf of the Free Papua movement, which doesn't yet have popular support. The movement has been outlawed in Indonesia, which took reign over Papua and West Papua in 1969 after a U.N.-sponsored referendum that was widely suspected of being rigged.

Mini P&G roundup: Is Procter & Gamble too big for its own good? And on the employment front, Procter & Gamble is the 15th-hardest company to interview for.

Masstige reigns: L'Oréal brings its hoity-toity brands Vichy and La Roche-Posay to Walgreens, presumably part of the drugstore chain's mission to become more of a masstige destination, à la its Look boutiques in NYC's Duane Reades.

Industrial beauty: Interesting read on another way the beauty-business boom in China is influencing Chinese female consumers: the quality (and price) increase of beauty salons. Once upon a time, beauty salons were vaguely unseemly, tucked away on side streets, and workers suffered from the assumption that "beauty salons" and their kin, "massage parlors," dealt in trades other than beauty and massages. Fast-forward to a surging middle class and suddenly the salon business is not only legitimate, but growing at a rapid-fire pace.

Cross culture: A peek at a growing Japanese subculture: men dressing like women. Hardly news in the States, but interesting to see emerging in Japan.

Clean and white: A new campaign for Clean and Dry, an "intimate wash" with skin lightening properties, is causing an outcry in its target market of India. I've argued before about the knee-jerk reaction of associating skin lightening creams with racism in nations where most of the population is dark- or tawny-skinned; that is, while race can never be left entirely out of the equation, it seems those creams are more associated with lifestyle and class connotations than internalized racial oppression. But this is different, methinks: Women worldwide are told their labia might not be quite good enough (vaginoplasty, anyone?), yet I can't help but think that the specific use of the tactic of "your labia are too brown" taps into a deep shame regarding one's skin color. 

Eating disorders aren't just a rich white girl thing, you know.

Binge and purrge: The newest population to fall prey to eating disorders, specifically psychogenic abnormal feeding behavior: cats.

Ana mia pia: Interesting study that's made the rounds about a potential upside to pro-eating-disorder sites: They may actually encourage and enable support of wellness, not only destructive behaviors. I'm actually not too surprised to hear this; plenty of the women I know with eating disorders have a pretty intense love/hate relationship with the very idea of the eating disorder. Nobody's suggesting we need more of these blogs, but I'm glad to see researchers looking at this with more complexity than just a blanket admonishment of these sites. 

Potato chip diet: Kristen Stewart is going to develop an eating disorder! Because she's suffering from a very public breakup for which she's being villainized (understandably so, but still) and is subsisting on cigarettes and potato chips! Oh, criminy. Who doesn't eat weird post-breakup? I recall being unable to stomach anything other than buttered toast after finding a then-boyfriend's active profile on Match.com (some suspicions, my friends, are founded). So this story is annoying for two reasons: 1) It gives a false impression of what eating disorders actually are (that is, you need to do more than just have a couple of weeks of eating poorly to have one), and 2) it shows that somehow eating disorders are to be expected of young women. Nobody is reporting on Robert Pattinson's eating habits, are they?

"Looking good is often balanced by feeling bad": Jane Hu gives the best piece on the complexities of the Cat Marnell thing (which I say, perhaps in vain, to separate it from Cat Marnell, who is, after all, a person) that I've read yet: "Marnell’s 'unthinkable jouissance' is just that—an explosive pleasure so seemingly destructive that many of us would rather not contemplate it. Her pleasure threatens the logic of reproductive futurism by exposing how meaningless life could get."

What men REALLY think, no really!: Hilarious commentary on one of those "What Dudes Really Think" pieces that basically serves as mental policing of us lady-types. I'd have liked to see Lindy focus more on the media machine that cranks out crap like this and less on the individual men quoted in the piece (who, I'm guessing, were badgered into it by a friend who happened to be an editor for RealBeauty.com who begged, "Please say something douchey about your girlfriend on the record! Think hard! First name only"). That said, I love the piece, and she also makes a very salient point here, about a man who says that he wishes his girlfriend would actually get a manicure instead of doing her nails herself: "I find it hard to believe that Shaun can even tell the difference between a salon manicure and an at-home manicure, unless his girlfriend has some sort of tremor-inducing palsy, or multitasks by combining nail maintenance with trampoline practice. Which means this whole thing is just about signaling—Shaun wants to be with the kind of woman who gets her nails done at a salon." Yep, yep, and yep.

On the Eurocentric beauty myth: I do my best to not superimpose my own politics onto other women's bodies, but I'm pretty sure I fall short sometimes. So this airing of concerns at Gradient Lair about white folks who shake their heads at black people who appear to be throwing around some internalized oppression is worth remembering. It's all spurred by talk of Gabby Douglas and, yep, her hair: "When Whites shake their fingers at Black people with internalized White supremacy issues, the ones that make them bash Gabby’s hair, yet turn around and deny job applicants with 'ethnic' names, 'ethnic' zip codes, or braids or locks, hair texture and Black culture most certainly intersects with Whiteness."

Eau de classics: This soap company sounds exquisite, taking inspiration from their scents from works of classic music and literature. Roses and cedar (both mentioned in the libretto) in The Magic Flute-inspired soap; olive oil and laurel leaf for Hyperion, set in Greece. Of course, Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab has been doing this for years, but there's always room for more, right?

Sniff: I don't care enough about perfumes to follow all these, but this list of the 17 best perfume blogs from Stylelist seems well-curated (and features the one scent blog I do read regularly, Scented Salamander, a blog that manages to be both conversational and erudite). In particular, I'm enchanted by Yesterday's Perfume, a vintage perfume blog.

The oldest panties in the world: Meet the 600-year-old matching bra-and-underwear set recently discovered in Austria. 

"It's a good thing that beauty is only skin deep, or I'd be rotten to the core." Phyllis Diller, 1917–2012

Two sides, same coin: It's not particularly hard to find beauty tutorials in Helen Gurley Brown's legacy—so I love that style expert Rachel Weingarten writes on not only an unexpected lesson from HGB, but on what she learned about beauty from Phyllis Diller. (It's been a rough couple of weeks for amazing older women, oui?)

What does a runner look like?: Congrats to Caitlin's recent 5K victory for her age group (and third woman overall!). As ever, she puts her thoughts on female athleticism adoitly: "I don’t look like a runner. I look like a basketball player, or maybe a swimmer. I look solid and sturdy and thick. I’m tall—taller than most women and even most men. My stomach isn’t flat. It hasn’t been since…actually, I don’t think it ever has been flat. My thighs are muscular but not lean. ... And yet there I was, the third woman across the finish line. My body was slick with sweat, my face red with exertion, my feet barely touching the ground because I was running so fucking hard. I may not look like a runner, but I am one—a good one, too. And I’m only going to get better."

Dangerous curves ahead: Beauty Redefined, in characteristically sharp fashion, identifies exactly why it's not progress when photo editors airbrush in curves on models instead of taking them out: "Thinness is not the problem here. Hourglass figures or 'curves in all the right places' are not the problem here. The problem here is that the grass is always greener on the other side, and so many industries have capitalized on convincing and re-convincing women (and men) of that lie." Absolutely. The first time I saw an editor mark up a photo with instructions to make the model "less bony," I felt a small sense of victory—until I put together that not only was that a deception to the reader, but a disservice to the model pictured. You see a lot of this in the industry. And just like thin-bashing, it is not okay.

On "old love": I've often wondered—assuming I am lucky enough to not only grow very old, but to grow very old with someone I love—how I'll handle knowing without a doubt that any form of conventional beauty I might have has faded. Normally I assuage my worries with thoughts of how if I'm so lucky to grow old with someone, surely he would see beauty beyond its supposed natural life; this essay reveals that might be true, but also that the admission of beauty's fading needn't be a bad thing: "A secret I have kept until now, however, is my suspicion that sometimes when I look at her today I substitute the image from a photograph taken almost 40 years ago in the garden of a villa on a Greek island, and that when she sees me she performs a similar operation."

Flattered yet?: "Flattering" has some mighty mixed messages therein, and Ragen at Dances With Fat stakes her claim against the word. I use the word judiciously—and I really try not to use it as a synonym for "slimming" when applied to clothes—for many of the reasons Ragen lists here, namely that it encourages the idea that there's one right way to look, and the closer you get to that look, the more "flattering" something is. (What about plain old looking good?) That said, I'm not exactly out to wear clothes that aren't flattering, you know? I'm not so into fashion that I must have the newest [whatever; I don't even know what's trendy right now, polka-dots?] regardless of how it looks on me; I want everything I wear to make me look my best. And yes, that's usually slimmer yet more hourglassy than I actually am. Ambivalent I remain.

Visibility forecast: I've seen the term "Visible Monday" around the style blogosphere, but hadn't really understood what it meant until I read this post by Patti at Not Dead Yet Style, guest posting for Already Pretty. I've heard of the phenomenon of "the invisible woman"—that is, women over a certain age who presumably cease to garner the male gaze, or indeed most gazes—and love Patti's response to it: Every Monday, she and anyone who wants to post style photos of themselves that make them feel visible.

Curve chart: Loving the Corporate Curves Report at Hourglassy, examining ways for full-busted women to navigate work wardrobe concerns and awkward work situations. (Like, erm, the time a videoconferencing camera wound up zooming in on Tina's bust.)

Modestly yours: Nahida examines the contradictions in practice surrounding Qur'an 23:31: "to subdue their gaze, and to be mindful / of their chastity, and not to show off
 / parts of their adornment [in public] beyond
 / what may [decently] be apparent
 / or obvious thereof." Or you could just read it as a post about hair flowers! Your call.

On shopping as war: Christina Kral and Adriana Valdez Young for South/South at The New Inquiry: "Both [war and shopping] can be quite aggressive and at the same time appear to be innocent or absolutely necessary. As we shop or war, we serve a greater other. There are seasons for shopping and seasons for war. Both keep us busy and controlled, it is aBeschäftigung (activity, occupation, service), a Zeitvertreib(pastime, amusement, vocation). What would people do if going to war or to the mall wasn’t an option anymore?"

You really like me!: Is it tooting my own horn if I point readers to someone else tooting my horn? Well, apologies if it is, but the Strong, Sexy & Stylish Short podcast this week made me all glowy, with Sally McGraw and her colleagues giving the public thumbs-up to what I do here. Thank you to the wonderful trio!

Beach Body Bingo (and Me on the Today Show)

Why would I feel beach body anxiety? Hell, Annette Funicello looks thrilled to be at the beach, and she's not even wearing a skydiving harness!

First off, a bit of news: I’m going to be on the Today show tomorrow morning  sometime in the next week [breaking news], talking mirror fasting. I’m pleased that this is beginning to be talked about as something more than just a blogger or two—word up, Kjerstin!—taking some time away from the mirror, and while I’m skeptical that there are enough mirror fasters out there to truly qualify as a “trend,” the idea that this is a part of a zeitgeist of women questioning their relationship to the mirror is exciting.

I was planning on doing the mirror fast again anyway, making it a sort of annual ritual for myself, when the Today show reached out to me after having read about my first go-round. In talking together, we decided it would be fun for me to keep a video diary of this year’s mirror fast, giving periodic updates about my progress and occasionally filming myself doing things that one would normally need a mirror to do. In brainstorming ideas we came up with a handful of ideas—going to the gym, shopping for clothes, getting my hair done, and so on.

When a friend suggested going to the beach, everyone else present nodded vigorously, but at first I wasn’t quite sure what that might have to do with going mirror-free. It’s not like there are mirrors at the beach, right? “It’s the whole ‘bikini season’ thing,” she said. Now, here’s the thing: I have my share of body anxieties, believe you me—but by whatever grace of the fates, “beach body” anxiety isn’t one of them. See, I love the beach. I. Love. The. Beach. Ilovethebeach. I saw a documentary about people with “object sexuality,” which amounts to a romantic desire toward inanimate objects (one woman fell out of love with her archery bow and fell in love with the Eiffel Tower), and—I mean, I’m not actually in love with the beach, but if the beach showed up at my place in a trenchcoat with a boombox, I’d be charmed, okay? And once I’m at the beach, my ability to get worked up about the circumference of my thighs becomes pretty much nil. I’m in the water half the time anyway—my great-grandmother was a mermaid—and the rest of the time I’m too busy sunning, dozing, fanning, or generally lazing about to care.

Sure, I might take care to suck in my belly when I emerge from the surf; yes, I usually give myself a quick once-over in my tankini before heading out the door. But I’m of the belief that American beaches—at least, my favorite beach in the five boroughs, Jacob Riis Park, named for a muckraker who documented the plight of poor, often new, Americans, who came here for a better life—are a sort of haven of democracy that extends to our bodies. There are plenty of beaches in the world (and in this country) where body consciousness rules, but New York City public beaches are not among them. I’m not saying that “beach body” anxiety isn’t a legitimate anxiety to have, just that it isn’t mine. Certainly, judging by the way others started nodding when the idea of going to the beach without having looked in a mirror recently, it’s an anxiety plenty of others share. So, sure, yeah, I’ll go to the beach and film it for my video diary. Maybe I’ll learn something, right?

Still, a couple of weeks after this conversation, it occurred to me: By including my beach trip in my video diary of my month without mirrors, which was going to be broadcast on national television, i.e. roughly four million people, I was also agreeing to appear in my swimsuit—on national television, in front of roughly four million people.

At this point, I feel like I should describe something about this realization felt: like a ton of bricks, perhaps? a punch in the gut? what other clichés can I come up with about how a 36-year-old woman with ample thighs, a round little beer belly, and a lifetime of Growing Up Woman would react upon realizing what she’d signed up for? This was the “swimsuit readiness” test of all time, right? This was my bikini body—okay, my tankini body, whatever—on display not for my fellow beachgoers (who would be, after all, in their own trunks and tankinis and Speedos and triangle tops and having far too good a time at the beach to be thinking about moi) but for people in their living rooms who may or may not have had their coffee yet and who may or may not be sitting there, arms crossed, grumbling Who is this woman, and why does she think we want to see her in her swimsuit? I should be freaking out, right?

Here’s the thing, though: I didn’t actually feel that way.
I report this not in a moment of triumph of overcoming all my self-consciousness, but rather in the way some people report reacting to the death of a loved one: feeling sort of weird about not feeling worse than they actually do. I knew of the feeling that might be expected of a woman nearing 40 with a probably-average set of body woes who just realized four million people may see her in her swimsuit—panic, anxiety, worry, fear. But when I compared it with my actual reaction, which was more in the realm of Oh, whatever, the gap between the two made me wonder why I wasn’t more anxious about it. Let me repeat that, for absurdity’s sake: My reaction to realizing that I’d signed up for four million people to see my bare thighs was nonchalance, and I didn’t understand why it wasn’t anxiety.

Like the five stages of grief—which, as a side note, are nicely debunked in Ruth Davis Konigsberg’s The Truth About Griefthe idea that women are eternally dissatisfied with our bodies has taken deep hold in our culture. That’s not an invention; plenty of women are or have been dissatisfied with our bodies, and I’d wager that the number of women who have never felt bodily dissatisfaction could fit in my bathtub. But it’s also an idea that came to be a truism that’s actually based on something deeply contextual. Looking at the comments on this post at No More Dirty Looks about when we feel most beautiful, it’s clear that as often as plenty of us bemoan the state of our bodies, our skin, our selves, we also know that sometimes we are damned good-looking. Who doesn’t feel radiant after an amazing dance class or yoga session or run in the woods? Who doesn’t feel beautiful curled up in the arms of a lover après amour?

These aren’t the stories we hear, though. We hear the opposite—the tales of dismay with ourselves. Even when we hear about women looking at their bodies without disapproval, it’s generally framed as a tale of redemption, of overcoming the poor bodily esteem we’re all expected to have. And in my case, that story had become so entrenched that even when my own experience and reality ran counter to it, there was still a part of me that reacted to the societal narrative above my own. Which, by the way, I did: For a couple of days I actually considered going to a tanning booth in hopes that a deeper color would serve as a quick body makeover—this from someone who can check every box on the high-risk skin-cancer checklist, and who has already had precancerous cells removed. I have never considered indoor tanning before; frankly, I’m just thankful I didn’t go down some weird food restriction rabbit hole, since I know that leads nowhere good. In the end, I didn’t go tanning; in the end, I was indeed filmed in my swimsuit, and in the end, if the Today show team includes that footage in the video segment and four million people see my naked thighs, I am fairly certain the earth will continue to rotate on its axis. My baseline sense of self prevailed here, but still I wonder about why there was a part of me that let the societal narrative run on its ticker tape, nearly superimposing itself over my own authentic reactions.

I’ll be thinking on this, probably for a while. I suspect it has something to do with the ways women are punished for being vain (though it’s not exactly as though we’re rewarded for rejecting vanity either), but I think there’s more there, and I’ll be writing more about that in the future. And maybe my perspective is skewed on this; after all, I spend a good deal of my time in corners of the blogosphere that focus on women’s bodies, so maybe I’m getting a slant here that isn’t actually representative of the archetypal narrative of women’s relationship to their bodies. I’d love to hear what your thoughts are on this: When you read or hear about women’s bodies—from women themselves—is it underscored with an assumption of dissatisfaction? Or is it underscored with neutrality or positivity, or redefined each time depending on the speaker and context? Or...?

In the meantime: I'll update here when I have a firm date for the show. It’ll be my first time on national television and I’d love to go into it knowing that some readers are there with me!

Beauty Blogosphere 8.17.12

What's going on in beauty this week, from head to toe and everything in between.



From Head...
Crop top: Miley Cyrus cut her hair; world freaks out. Luckily, we have Mary Elizabeth Williams (with whom I've previously disagreed about short hair) to lucidly articulate why a crop needn't be a "call for help": "Long hair represents femininity and vulnerability and sex. It’s princesses and mermaids and porn stars. Short hair, on the other hand, says, 'If you think I’m gorgeous, great, but this isn’t about you, pal.'"


...To Toe...
A Tale of Two Walks: I've never been amused by men doing stereotypically feminine things for laffs; it generally strikes me as condescending, not investigative. Yet I'm sort of halfway into this fund-raising/awareness walk for domestic violence called Walk a Mile in Her Shoes, where men walk, yes, a mile in women's high heels. It shifts the onus for intimate partner violence from women onto men (who make up the majority of abusers); obviously I'm all for women helping women, but until anti-violence messages are targeted toward abusers, we're not going to get anywhere, and this seems like a start. But then again, it could do the opposite—paint a traditionally feminine icon as something weak, painful, and in need of assistance. Thoughts?


...And Everything In Between:
Avon calling:
Fascinating study from Baylor University that serves as an interesting complement to the Mary Kay exposé in Harper's by Virginia Sole-Smith. For black women in South Africa, direct sales (specifically, Avon) seems to actually provide some of the benefits that these companies promise—and fail to deliver—their sales representatives in the States, as shown by Sole-Smith's work. One example: In a country where only 38.4% of black women have any bank account at all, whether their own or a joint account with a family member, 92% of Avon representatives had their own bank account. It seems that vague terms of "empowerment" can take a firmer hold in places where women's power is far more tenuous than it is in cultures where most of this blog's readers hail from. Women in the study widely reported increased self-confidence, career skills for future jobs, and financial autonomy. More to the point: The mean income earned from selling Avon was about 900 ZAR (roughly $109 U.S.) a month, which would put an Avon representative in the top half of wage-earning black women in South Africa, and would bring her earnings nearly in line with that of her male counterpart.

I can see through your transparency: Johnson & Johnson is launching a site dedicated to educating consumers on ingredient safety for their products, which seems like a nice enough idea until you read between the lines here. “People already know that our products and ingredients meet or exceed government regulatory standards. They want to know more,” said a Johnson & Johnson representative. Well, yes, we want to know more, given that there are no government regulatory standards for many of the personal care products in question. This seems more along the lines of the Safe Cosmetics Alliance to me—that is, not terribly safe at all.

Something smells suspicious: Two former employees of perfumery Bond No. 9 are filing charges against their former boss, owner Laurice Rahme, for racist bias. Rahme asked employees to use the unsettling code phrase "We need the light bulbs changed" whenever a customer with dark skin—oh, excuse me, whenever a customer who looks "suspect," as claimed by Rahme—walked in. (At least one of the women bringing the suit is dark-skinned and was allegedly not allowed to help white customers.) When the employees complained about the racist practice, they were fired and accused of defrauding the company of $25,000.

Patch it up: Sri Lankan man dies after an allergic reaction to a hair dye. Patch test, people! (Actually, I've never patch tested a beauty product in my life, but after I had an unexpected allergic reaction to a medication this spring that left my body covered in a heat rash and my face and hands terribly swollen—this after a lifetime of no medicinal allergies whatsoever—I'm going to start. You really never know.)

Breaking news: Area Woman Not Harassed Today. "Perhaps more mysteriously, not one male superior she passed silently in the halls grinned at her unnervingly and told her that it 'wouldn't hurt to smile,' the 28-year-old confirmed."



Fashion etiquette: What to wear if you're a lady marrying a lady?

"An individual is not an abstraction": A hyena might look like a very nice hyena but a very ugly dog—a nice analogy from Franklin Veaux on why he's never understood the idea of having a strong preference for certain physical characteristics in partners. (I never have either, besides being a sucker for a tall dude, though I've certainly been attracted to the small-but-mighty type as well.) (via Strong, Sexy & Stylish)

Alpha: Science (you know, Science) is coming one step closer to discovering how all that alpha hydroxy shit we're supposed to put on our faces past age 30 actually works! Like I suspected, it's all about the transient receptor potential vanilloid 3.

Go for the gold: Virginia Sole-Smith on "Olympic Beauty" and body diversity: "[W]hen the Olympics dominates the media, we see a huge range of body types — and we celebrate every one of them for what they can do, and how damn good they look doing it." (Okay, sometimes "we" also razz Olympians for how they look, but let's focus on the positive here.) Body comparisons of any sort usually lead nowhere good for me, so I don't do them, and that's also why I don't share any of my "numbers" on here (weight, clothing sizes, waist measurement, etc. Though I will let you all know that my feet are a perfect size 9). That said: Looking at Olympian bodies, I get the same sensation Virginia describes here. Seeing, say, female swimmers (or female sailors, apparently, according to this "What's Your Olympic Body Type" quiz that matches my frame to a surprising number of Nordic sailing team members) with features similar to mine—broad shoulders, not-whittled waists, and strong legs (ahem, not that my legs are a fraction as strong as Olympians')—when none of those features are particularly valued in our culture...yes, it feels sort of validating.

Twenty-eight, looking great: Women feel sexiest at age 28, apparently? I looked pretty schlubby at 28 so I can't really comment on this. (Age 31, however, treated me nicely.) I can't seem to find the original study—which, mind you, was conducted by a marketing firm, so grain of salt and all that—but it goes on to say that women just might actually be happier with their bodies than we usually let on. This definitely jibes with my experience: I've found that the places where women (myself included) seem most free to praise their own bodies are spaces of presumed overcoming of body issues. And hell yeah, those issues are vast, and real, and harmful, no doubt. But our vanities must remain secret, or posited as contrary to the baseline "truth" of us all disliking our forms. Harrumph. (via Ashe)

#nodads: One of the greatest indicators of whether a girl will self-objectify? Whether her mother does the same. This makes sense, and in the best-case scenario some mothers might realize that all the positive words in the world won't matter as much as having a genuinely healthy relationship with her own body and presence when it comes to raising a daughter with a strong self-image. But I'm with About-Face: What about fathers? 

Bare it: Fashion Fair, one of the first makeup lines targeting black women, unveils a mineral foundation line. That's nice and all, but I love what Clutch fingers here: The ad uses a bald model, thus neatly sidestepping the natural vs. relaxed hair debate. Clever, clever!

Who's the most bimajo of them all?: Congratulations (?) to Masako Osako, who recently won a magazine contest in Japan for being the most bimajo out of more than 2,000 applicants who proved to not be quite as bimajo as the reigning bimajo. Bimajo, in case your transliterated Japanese is rusty, translates roughly to "beautiful witch" and denotes "a woman over 35 with a radiance that gives no suggestion of her age."

Turban 101: Eleven years ago, this "turban primer" might have seemed merely interesting to people curious about headgear of different cultures. But after 9/11—and, more recently, after the tragedy in Wisconsin—publishing a guide to distinguish Sikh turbans from Indian turbans from, well, Taliban members (who, it turns out, don't have any particular turban style at all) seems disingenuous at best. At worst, as Angry Asian Man points out, it's more along the lines of WWII-style "How to Spot a Jap" pieces.

Give generously.

"Add some googly eyes, for chrissakes": Until I watched this shocking PSA, I was unaware of the "Swetsy shops" that churn out wall decals, hand-stamped bird stationery, and tam o'shanters—all using the labor of young exploited hipster women. The Manic Pixie Dream Fund: Won't you donate?

Mirror me: I never thought I'd be mentioned in a trend piece (moi?!), but it's about time someone saw a story in the fact that Kjerstin Gruys and I—and others, I've learned—each thought up the idea of "mirror fasting" independent of one another at roughly the same time. Kate Murphy at the New York Times takes a look at what appears to be a mini-trend. 

What's in a name?: Beauty and personal-care product company Pinch Provisions—formerly Ms. and Mrs.—is the hook of this piece on companies renaming themselves. (via Nancy Friedman, who knows a thing or two about naming). 

Pussy play: If you've been following the story of Pussy Riot, the Russian punk group whose anti-Putin sentiments may well land (have landed? the verdict is due today) three members in a Siberian labor camp, read this essay on the performative aspect of the trio's saga. Performative for the women involved, yes, and that's why I'm including it here. But Sarah Nicole Prickett's excellent essay delves into broader questions about performativity: west vs. east, here vs. "there," punk fashion vs. punk ethos.

And what do you do?: The backstory from seven people with nifty-sounding jobs in the beauty industry, including a perfume "nose" and color forecaster. (Here's a non-slideshow version; I feel ethically obligated to link to the place that generated it, but c'mon, Refinery 29! Internet, can we cut the slideshow crap? I thought nobody cared about page views anymore?)

Out of the box: How to use your blow-dryer for auto body work, and seven other non-beauty tips involving beauty products.

Globetrotter: As a total xenophile, I'm loving Venusian Glow's new series on global beauty, in which women from various regions share beauty routines, products, and attitudes. First up: Australia, where apparently having a real tan as opposed to a spray one is actually frowned upon. 

Manicure message: Phoebe nails it (oi!) on the peculiar appeal of nail art: "[T]he more complicated your nails, the more of a statement you're making about your willingness to scrub the kitchen floor, or to bake bread from scratch. It's telling men ... that you take care of yourself, and aren't looking to pick up after them. Which could be why it's so appealing as an antidote to stressful domestic tasks." Strictly speaking, I don't do stressful domestic tasks (I'm willing to live with the dust bunnies, and I treat bread mold sort of like Where's Waldo), but I have noticed that the more demanding my work, the more I long for a manicure. I'm too cheap to get an actual manicure on a regular basis, but I can measure this in temptation points, right?

Child's play: If there's a kid or teen in your life who's passionate about fashion and has expressed interest in it as a career, point them toward Final Fashion for this post by Danielle Meder about ways to nurture/direct that energy.

Size 8s unite: Kjerstin Gruys takes a skeptical yet open look at the recent spate of "size 8 pride" among celebrities like Mindy Kaling and Miranda Lambert: "I think that claiming to be a 'size 8' is intended to give us the impression that the celebrity is not so skinny that we can't relate to her, but also not so fat that we cringe on her behalf, or no longer aspire to be her." (P.S.: Check out the 20/20 segment on Kjerstin's mirror-free year that aired on Wednesday. Just try to watch it and not get a little teary during her first dance at the wedding, mmmkay?)

Invited Post: The Ripple Effect

Mara Glatzel from Medicinal Marzipan has long been one of my favorite body image bloggers, in part for her worldview and in part for her graceful, inspirational prose. But what strikes me most about Medicinal Marzipan is its honesty: Glatzel shares her vulnerabilities as well as triumphs in the route to wellness (including a recent post that gave me one of my own biggest "aha!" moments in the past several years about my own eating concerns). 

I was pleased to learn that Mara has developed a tool for helping others find their own place on the vulnerability-triumph spectrum, with Body Loving Homework, which she describes as "one part Ebook, one part digital anthology, and one part self-study coaching program—designed to help you find clarity around what you deserve out of your life and your daily experiences." When I sampled a few of the 100 writing prompts in the book, my responses ranged from joy (apparently my answer to "My body remembers" is a hint racy) to discovery (I think of myself as pretty calm, so imagine my surprise when several of my answers to prompts involved the word panic). I asked her to guest post here about incorporating self-acceptance into our daily lives, and the place where self-image and body image intersect. 





If you’re anything like me, you know exactly what it feels like to go through the motions: saying yes, piling on the additional work, doing the emotional housekeeping, working out the logistics, and taking everyone else’s needs into account.

You’re probably really good at it too—a skill cultivated and honed over the course of your life.

I used to think that taking care of others was what I was best at, what I was put on the planet to do.

I used to think that just because I was good at it, I was relegated to going through the motions the rest of my life.

This conveniently fit in with other beliefs that I held about my life—feelings of being unworthy, unlovable, unforgivably damaged—because, through taking really good care, I was able to make myself useful in a way that didn’t require me to necessarily stick my neck out.

I was kind.

I made dinner.

I cleaned up communal physical space.

I put down whatever I was working on, attending instead to the emotional crisis at hand.

I do not intend to set up a paradox here, as in: when I hated myself, I took care of everyone else, and when I learned how to love myself for who I was, I only took care of myself.

For me, it wasn’t one or the other. It was in the appearance of a choice in the matter. It was knowing that I was worth loving not only for my caretaking abilities, but also for the rest of me as well.

When I learned how to love myself, truly love myself, and believe in the fact that I had more to offer the world than laundered socks and mended hearts—I was able to believe, also, that I was more than what I had been permitting myself.

When I was single or momentarily attached, I used to joke that I was a “starter wife”—the kind of girl who picks up broken, sad partners, and uses her love to shine them up like a little penny, gently reinforcing their strengths through the repetition and constancy of my adoration.

Until the day that they got so shiny, they wanted to hop into someone else’s pocket.

In these moments, I was left alone, heartbroken, but, when I was truly honest with myself—at least partially to blame. I had avoided infusing myself into these relationships, because I deeply feared that doing so would scare my partner away. I had internalized messages during my youth—messages of being too big, too loud, too passionate. I had been told by my experiences that people stayed around longer if you made your needs as brief and palatable as possible, and then went about your day becoming exactly who they need you to be.

I remember the exact day when I realized that I could, instead, choose to be myself.

I realized that if I was myself, and it didn’t work out, at least I knew ahead of time instead of wishing and praying that my real self wouldn’t pop up unexpectedly and drive someone away.

For me, self-acceptance has been the slow integration of who I was presenting as and who I was inside. It was the process of becoming who I already was. It was putting all of my faith in the idea that if I could permit myself to be myself that I could love that person—even when I was afraid to do so. 

However, as will naturally occur when you begin to change one aspect of your life—suddenly, the impact spread, and I was astounded by how pervasive my self-hatred had become.

I found unexpressed sentiment and choked on words in every facet of my life—work, relationship, family. I found that in fact I really hated where we had chosen to put that new bookshelf or that in my heart, I wished we had painted the bathroom blue instead of red. I was surprised, as these feelings weren’t even large, big scary to divulge feelings—I was saying yes and keeping quiet in all aspects of my life.

And, at first, I thought I was doing all of this out of some sort of damaged self-esteem around my body, but, over time, I realized, it wasn’t my body—it was my most basic sense of worth and deserving. It was who I was, deep inside, that was hurting and needed to be freed.

What I thought was about the size of my hips, was actually about the cultivation and maintenance of healthy boundaries within the context of my relationships.

What I thought was about whether or not someone thought I was attractive, was actually about speaking my needs out loud, in the presence of another.

What I thought was about my body—was about how I was living my life.

The human body is a convenient scapegoat. 

Contentious by nature, degraded by the media, and a highly personal battleground, our bodies carry more than their fair share of the pain, hurt, and rejection that we experience in the world. For example, it was much easier for me to hate my body than realize that I needed to dramatically upgrade my ability to create and maintain healthy boundaries.

In many ways, hating your body is easy. You’ll never be alone. You will always have others to join you in your self-hatred, commiserating over the size of their thighs or how this was the week that they are going on a diet or he didn’t reject me—he rejected my body. As in, things that you can fix or have control over.

When it is about your body, it is a problem that society tells you you can fix—head to the gym, hop on a diet, indulge in some plastic surgery. Even if you wouldn’t resort to some of those options, they are out there, filling up the social consciousness with feelings of safety and well-being. Whether or not you choose to access them—the option is there.

You can change your body. You can make yourself prettier. You can buy new, sexy clothing.

You know how to do that, and on many levels—it feels safe.

What about when it’s not about your body? What about when it is about your basic ability to connect with other human beings, relax into intimacy, or be both yourself and yourself in the context of a couple?

That feels much less safe.

This is the messy zone, the dark closet that we shove all of our odds and ends in, in order to keep the rest of our house tidy and presentable. The answers here are not cut and dry. They do not apply to everyone. You cannot read about them in the self-help section of your favorite magazine.

They come from learning to listen to the voice inside your body, the small part of yourself that lets you know what you’d most like and what your wildest dreams are.

I had been keeping myself small—occupied by the an overflowing to-do list of laundry and groceries, wrapped up in the melodrama of my own creation, and concerned with the well-being of those around me first, and my own needs—last, always.

It wasn’t that learning to love myself dramatically altered who I was. I haven’t stopped taking care, but I am confident now that I am choosing to take care and that the people who I choose to take care of are worthy of my most profound love and consideration.

Learning to love myself has permitted me the ability to realize that I was worthy of anything that I put my mind or heart to. It was the quiet process of choosing, every day, that who I am is important. That my words matter. That my actions are an extension of my heart, and that they should be respected as such.

That I am worthy of my own love and the love of those around me, and not because I’ve cooked them dinner.


_________________________________________

Mara Glatzel is a self-love coach + author of Body Loving Homework: Writing Prompts for Cultivating Self-Love. She works with women who are ready to create the lives they want — and deserve. Her blog, Medicinal Marzipan, has inspired thousands of women to heal their relationships with their bodies, and treat themselves with relentless compassion. Catch up with her on Facebook or Twitter, or join her body-loving mailing list for secret swapping and insider news.

Helen Gurley Brown, 1922-2012


Six years ago, I was waiting for an elevator when Helen Gurley Brown walked up next to me. This wasn’t terribly unusual; I worked for an offshoot of Cosmopolitan at the time, and our offices were housed in the same building. What was unusual was that she was alone, and that I was dressed well.

I’d only begun dressing well a few months prior to our elevator run-in; depression had kept me in baggy hoodies and ill-fitting jeans between the ages of 24 and 29. As my 30th birthday neared, I realized I was hitting the age where I just might be putting patterns into place that would stick with me forever. I broke up with my boyfriend, chopped my sloppy bob in favor of a pixie cut, lost 30 pounds—and much to my surprise, found that sometimes I enjoyed being looked at. On this particular morning, I was wearing my favorite of my array of dresses and had matched it with heels that, for me, were wildly impractical. Perhaps most importantly, I’d just had the pleasure of a certain variety of overnight guest, so my bronzer wasn’t the only thing lending me a glow.

Helen Gurley Brown looked at me and gave a dim, polite smile. Then she slowly ran her eyes from my pixie cut to my carefully pushed-up bust line, from the hips swathed just so in my new dress down to my shoes. As her eyes worked their way back up from the heels to my figure to my face, her head began to bob in what slowly turned into a nod, and by the time she looked me in the eye again, the smile had gone from polite to approving. Helen Gurley Brown had given me her approval. At that moment, one of the company higher-ups joined us at the elevator, and she turned to the newcomer, cupped her hair in one frail hand, and actually addressed her as pussycat. Our moment of approval (on her end) and awe (on mine) passed.

I’ve told this anecdote a handful of times, and the reactions come in two forms: a “how cool!” exuberance, or dismay. “Ick,” one friend said: “Why does her approval matter to you?” Beneath the latter reaction is something like this: Helen Gurley Brown made Cosmopolitan into what it is, and what it is isn’t exactly something a smart women’s-studies-set type like me should approve of, so why on earth would the approval of Helen Gurley Brown leave me beaming?

It’s not a bad question. The problems with Cosmopolitan—or rather, with the Cosmo-fication of women’s media, are manifest to the point of trite. I myself have publicly criticized women’s magazines plenty of times; for every time I’ve talked about how important they’ve been to the mainstreaming of feminism (which, in this context, I count as a good thing), I’ve cringed at a story that has passed over my desk (“How to Wash Your Face,” which was—I kid you not—soon followed by “How to Wash Your Hair,” due to its predecessor’s success among readers).

Logically, I should be fingering Helen Gurley Brown as the godmother of face-washing how-tos and insulting sex tips. I can’t do that, though, and not only because of the fondness I felt when she hand-wrote her thoughts on the premiere issue of CosmoGirl—the teen Cosmo spinoff I worked at off and on for years before it folded in 2008—and my boss giddily distributed photocopies to everyone in the office. (All I remember of her comments was that she loved Boy-o-Meter, in which readers would rate teenage boys on their looks.) Nor is it my love of the kitschy tone of Sex and the Single Girl, which I have read from cover to cover, and which always makes me feel like a vixen even if I’m just pawing through it at home in my yoga pants.

Nor—surprisingly—is my admiration of her only born from the contrarian feminist within me who wants to argue for her as a key figure in women’s history, the woman who let us all know that it was okay to like sex and that you didn’t have to be married to want it. But the issue of Helen Gurley Brown and feminism deserves solid mention here: It is easy to forget, when Cosmopolitan is now so easily mocked for its insistence upon doing the most ridiculous boudoir moves possible, that the year she took editorship of the magazine was the same year the Supreme Court struck down laws banning contraceptives for married couples. The Pill had only been available for a few years, meaning that the concept of a woman being able to have sex whenever she wished and maintain control of her reproductive system was similarly young. For Helen Gurley Brown to come out and say what plenty of young women had known for years but had been afraid to voice—that sex was fun, sex was delightful, sex was not to be feared, and sex could happen simply because you, a woman, desired it—was revolutionary. It was revolutionary at the time, and given the fetishization of “purity” and the fact that the only term we have for a man who sleeps around is “male slut,” it remains revolutionary today. Also, let it be known that Helen Gurley Brown identified as a feminist. Plenty of people within the women’s movement disagree with her self-appraisal; as for me, I am happy to count her among my tribe. (Factoid: Chapter 9 of Sex and the Office, “Lunchland III: A Very Special Report,” opens with an anecdote from a “beautiful young executive” named Letty Cottin, who would go on to be Letty Cottin Pogrebin, a founding editor of Ms.)

But still, no, that isn’t what made me smile that day waiting for the elevator, nor is it what brought a heaviness to my heart upon learning that the flame-haired, miniskirted, bejeweled woman I’d admired died yesterday at age 90. In fact, it wasn’t our near-introduction at all, but rather something that sprang from the first time I laid eyes on her, at the Hearst holiday party in 1999. Through the haze brought on by the candy-cane cocktails handed out by the staff of Tavern on the Green, I spotted her: She was jockeying for the shortest skirt in the room, and had topped it off with what resembled a sequined Chanel jacket (perhaps it was a sequined Chanel jacket), that flame-colored hair teased beyond belief. She was dancing and had a small entourage around her. I flew home for Christmas and breathlessly reported to my parents that I’d seen Helen Gurley Brown, and that she was wearing a miniskirt, and wasn’t that awesome?

It was awesome, but not for the reasons I believed at the time. At the time it was more about one of my first run-ins with a celebrity, akin to the time I saw Drew Barrymore at Disneyland. And I am embarrassed to admit this, but: I shared my sighting of her with the faintest hint of ridicule. She was 77 at the time, and I was at an age at which anyone over the age of 35 was more in the realm of parent than peer. To see a 77-year-old woman partying it up in a miniskirt shorter than I’d dare to wear today—it was “cute,” and a little unseemly. I understood that she had to attend the annual company party; I understood that because she was Helen Gurley Freakin’ Brown, she could probably do the electric slide and still earn our collective respect. And I also, erroneously, understood that a woman of her age to be prancing around around in a miniskirt was—well, wasn’t that better left to people who were the age of Cosmo’s readership? Wasn’t it just the tiniest bit sad?

What I did not yet understand was that the things I condescendingly perceived as “cute” were actually evidence that I was witnessing a woman who was unafraid to work it. She knew full well the penalties heaped upon women of a certain age, and she disregarded those penalties with a shrug of her possibly-Chanel-sequined shoulder. She’d published Sex and the Single Girl when she was 40; in it she wrote “If you think only the jeunes filles, the voluptuous or sleek-cat creatures are the sexy ones, you have been living in the rumble seat of an Essex roadster the past twenty-five years.” That is, not only did she write one of the country’s most influential tomes on sexuality at an age many might have considered over the hill for a woman, but if she was speaking literally of those twenty-five years, by age 15 she’d already begun to disregard the notion that one’s sexuality died out past a divinely decreed age. I have no idea whether she decided then and there that she’d never stop being, well, Helen Gurley Freakin’ Brown (or, I suppose, Helen Freakin’ Gurley; the Brown came along in 1959 with her marriage to film producer David Brown) and would wear miniskirts as short as she damn well pleased until she tired of them, or whether it simply became her way of life over time. Really, I have no idea about her private life other than what I’ve read, which is, after all, the result of a cultivated public image.

But what I can deduce is that Helen Gurley Brown had respect for the woman who tries. That may not necessarily sound like something one should respect; when it comes to self-presentation, shouldn’t authenticity trump strain, ease trump effort? Sometimes, sure. But I’m certain I’m not the only woman who would find it less difficult to walk down the street bare-faced in sweatpants than to strut along with a bright red pucker, hair done to the hilt, cleavage pushed to the chin, and clothes that announce to the world, I want to be looked at. To Sex and the Single Girl readers who objected to wearing makeup, she challenged: “Is it possible you’re a little afraid to be on—in the limelight—every single day? If your makeup were always flawless, you’d be making an open bid for attention.” Trying is the hard sell; trying is a dare. Trying is a command to the world: Look at me, for I am worth your attention. Can trying be the opposite, a sad proclamation of one’s low self-esteem, that a woman thinks all she has to offer the world is her looks? Yes, of course. But when I think of the women I know who really work it—the 51-year-old receptionist who helms her desk with a teased updo and smoky eye at 8:30 a.m., the artist who goes shopping in ball gowns to cheer herself up, the woman of a certain age who is so impeccably styled that every time I’ve been in her company I’ve witnessed a total stranger walk up to her and profess admiration—these are not women suffering from a paucity of self-esteem. These are women who are willing to try, and who are willing to tell you what they want you to see. These are the women I was willing to try to emulate when I decided I was ready to discard clothes that hid me in favor of clothes that revealed me; from them, and from Helen Gurley Brown, I learned that overcoming the fear of trying can be tantamount to freedom.

When women try—when women strive—we put ourselves on the line, more so than men because our purpose is still presumed to be you are here to be looked at. I will support the argument that we should change the paradigm; I agree that part of the answer to the scrutiny we find ourselves under, 52 years after the Pill, is to change our culture so that being looked at is no longer seen as womankind’s greatest goal. That argument also does jack squat for women living right now, as the world exists; it casts a sidelong glance at women who seize power through being seen, or who might just sometimes enjoy being looked at, or who take the traditionally passive role of being seen and transform it into an act of agency in public life and private relationships. Helen Gurley Brown intuited this; rather, she experienced it, as a woman who experienced the manifold facets of womanhood in the early 1960s. With Sex and the Single Girl, she argued that the problem wasn’t being simply looked at; it was being looked at and having no say in how you were seen.

One can look at things like her list of what’s sexy and not—a good telephone voice and the ability to sit very still are sexy, girdles and borrowing money most definitely are not—and find a dictator of femininity, one born from that special kind of misogyny individual women occasionally serve to one another. Certainly lesser variations of her are exactly that. Yet in looking at Helen Gurley Brown’s legacy, one could find something else, something benevolent, even sisterly. For when I read her work, when I look at her life, when I recall the look of approval—no, affection—that crossed her face as she issued her silent blessing to a younger version of myself that morning at the elevator, what I find is a gift.

Beauty Blogosphere 8.10.12


What's going on in beauty this week, from head to toe and everything in between.

From Head...
"Tricky tricky things": Stunning short fiction from Nigerian sci-fi writer Nnedi Okorafor about—see, if I say it's about a magical wig it'll sound far less nuanced and enchanting than it actually is. So instead, let's say it's about the power of looking instead of being looked at. (Thanks to Ben Laden for the heads-up!)


...To Toe...



Zootopia: Reasons not to be a giraffe, part I: You'd have to be anesthetized before your pedicure.


...And Everything In Between:
Tease and desist: Urban Decay, maker of a "Naked" palette line, sends a cease-and-desist letter to Victoria's Secret about their new cosmetics line "The Naked." Vicki's Secret responds by filing a suit in federal court asking for the right to get nekkid, and the legal world now waits with bated breath to find out who will emerge victorious in the battle of the nudes.

Decisions, decisions: Estee Lauder heir Ron Lauder, quarter-owner of ailing Israeli TV station Channel 10, faced with deciding whether to pump roughly $15 million into keeping the channel afloat or letting it die its natural death. 

Goliath: Interesting Wall Street Journal piece about how mid-sized beauty brands get snatched up by beauty behemoths—think the Coty buyout of Philosophy, or Estee Lauder and Smashbox. The anti-corporate gal in me has a negative knee-jerk reaction to this, but a beauty editor revealed a different angle in our interview: "A lot of times it’s better because now you have this huge R&D machine to work with. Clorox bought Burt’s Bees, and when I went to the Burt’s Bees factory and asked about it, they were like, 'It’s the greatest thing ever—they let us continue doing what we were doing, but we have an infusion of cash so we can do more.'"

Mom & Pop: Local brands in China are giving pause to dominant forces like Proctor & Gamble. This piece is more about personal care and home products in general, but I wonder about its implications for the beauty market. Beauty brands have poured a good deal of resources into developing products to target Asian consumers—could it be for naught, if domestic brands are no longer considered second-rate by the buying public?

Good girl gone: "Family brand" Nivea drops association with Rihanna, whose "California King Bed" was the soundtrack to a recent commercial, saying that her sexy persona wasn't compatible with the company's wholesome image. You'd have thought they'd consider that before picking her song for the commercial in the first place, but what do I know about showbiz?


I go nuts for gymnast butts: What if photo editors treated male athletes the way they do female volleyball players? Class-A satire of objectification.

XX-ray spex: Blinders that blur men's eyesight so they can't see women beyond a narrow range of vision? An Orthodox organization has developed these "anti-ogle goggles," and while my instinct was to be pleased that for once the onus of "modesty" was being placed on the person doing the looking as opposed to the person being looked at, at day's end I'm with Hugo, who points out that a "covenant is a promise sustained by faith, not by a crude device that impairs the senses."

The case of Lolo Jones: The New York Times says Olympic hurdler Lolo Jones really only gets attention because she's pretty, which seems maybe like a sensible assertion to make until you read the article, which has a nasty tone and implies it's somehow Jones's fault that her more heavily-medaled teammates aren't getting the attention thrust upon her. As ever, Caitlin Constantine's take on this is razor-sharp: "It’s absolutely valid to ask why Jones, who did not medal in Beijing, is considered so much more marketable than Dawn Harper, who actually won the gold medal. ...That’s not what I’ve really seen a lot of people talk about. Instead, it seems like Jones’ greatest sin in the eyes of many is that she is a self-promoter." The way Olympic endorsements work isn't fair, that's for sure, nor is it standardized. By all rights, a medalist like Dawn Harper should be reaping endorsements and attention. But as Jezebel points out, "While Jones has certainly garnered her fair share of attention for, yes, her good looks and sexual choices, questioning her qualifications to be in the Olympics should have ended when she, y'know, qualified for the Olympics."

Rue the day: According to Research, which we know is never infallible, men tend to regret not pursuing physically attractive women, while women tend to regret not following up with wealthy men. I'm not quite sure what to make of this—I mean, sure, I theoretically regret not having milked my Greek shipping magnate-suitor for private dinners at French Laundry, but in actuality, I can't think of true romantic regrets of this variety. (Maybe I'm just easy?) Is this something people really go through? Do you regret not pursuing particular people? If so, was your reasoning about their looks, their income...? 

Model citizens: Positively drooling to see this HBO documentary about aging models, with notable names such as Jerry Hall, Isabella Rossellini, and Paulina Porizkova. Only with age can someone like Porizkova reflect on her early career: "Working off your looks makes you pretty much the opposite of self-confident. Still, I don’t think any 15-year-old girl will turn down the chance to be called beautiful. You don’t realize at that point that you are also going to be called ugly.” Or, sadly, "What people called sexual harassment, we called compliments. When a 16-year-old is flattered by a man pulling out his penis in front of her, that’s noteworthy.”

To the point: "People who care a lot about their own beauty usually have strong and complicated reasons for feeling that way." I've had a couple of drive-by commenters say that they think my entire blog is a testament to how gorgeous I think I am, and each time I'm left wondering how anyone could get that from what I write. (Apparently a woman writing about looks without taking care to be self-deprecating is tantamount to extravagant pride?) From now on, I might well refer them to this mini-treatise on the fascination of our own looks. (Thanks to Tizz Wall for the link.)

The upside of ugly: Challenging piece from Jessica Valenti about the self-esteem trap we set up for girls by telling them "confidence" is all they need to make it in the world, with the hook of plastic surgery given to kids who have "facial deformities"...like ears that stick out. There's much I disagree with here (Valenti attributes her sense of humor and feminism to not having grown up a terribly pretty girl, which seems an odd construction for a feminist to make; what of all the pretty girls who found feminism because they got tired of being valued for their looks?) but the core here is intact: If we turn self-esteem into the end-all, be-all of girlhood, we set up a parallel path in which any route girls take to get there—including plastic surgery—is justified.

Source of all my sex tips. 

Cosmo girls: My lifelong love-hate relationship with ladymags gets even more complex with reading this New York Times magazine article by Edith Zimmerman about international editions of Cosmopolitan (64 of 'em!). 

Nailing it: Tracie Egan Morrissey looks at nail art, "the last bastion of female-centric beauty." As she points out, nails are the one beauty ritual that has naught to do with fitting some sort of beauty standard that evo-psych enthusiasts claim is about women babooning for men, thus totally legitimizing the fact that my toenails haven't gone a day unpainted since 2006.

Popularity contest: Fashionista looks at the beauty products that showed the greatest sales increase in the first two quarters of the year. Most surprising: Makeup palette sales shot up 19%. Why so popular all of a sudden? I'm guessing some combination of feeling like you're getting more for your money, and the way it sort of scratches the itch for curation, which has become quite the thing thanks to ye olde internet. It's a Twitter feed for your face!

Disability visibility: An intriguing trio of academic papers focusing on appearance and disability: prosthetics as accessories; acceptance and rejection of the beauty status quo among blind women; and garments designed to prevent inappropriate undressing among dementia patients.

Can't buy happiness: This sorta grody infographic that tried to half-assedly argue that spending money on beauty makes people unhappy made the rounds this week. The most interesting take is at Autostraddle, where Gabrielle mused about the role of the queer community and mainstream beauty culture: "The study claims that beautiful people make more money than not beautiful people, but last time I checked, dykes still make less than cis-men." The larger point here is that we're in a lose-lose proposition: People who are "naturally" beautiful enjoy greater happiness, but spending more money to appear naturally beautiful doesn't appear to have an effect on happiness.

In the rough: The world's most expensive nail polish: the $250,000 black diamond nail polish by jeweler Azature. (Looks like sandpaper to me. Am I alone?) 

In the buff: Every so often there's a brand or product too great not to share: Meet MySkins, a bra/underwear line with 20 different shades of "nude." Still lacking on the darker end of the skin-tone spectrum, but it's still nice to see a start of a solution to a problem that prevents some of us from wearing white tops with pride. (Note: In comments, several readers pointed out that the size range for MySkins is woefully lacking—as evidenced by them not being able to house my utterly unremarkable 32Cs. Still a great idea, and I get that young companies can't carry a wide variety of stock, but c'mon! As Rebekka put it, "I like the idea of catering to different skin colours, but what's the use when they don't cater to most women, because they don't understand bra sizes?" Or panty sizes either, for that matter; for the style I wanted, the largest size was a 36-inch hip.)

Ladyscope: I love it when someone fesses up to doing something I do covertly, which is why I totally ate up this Kate Fridkis essay on checking out other women. So often this gets talked about strictly in terms of competition, but that's only rarely what my own secret scoping is about. (If anything, it's awe, but that doesn't fit as nicely into the ladies-love-to-catfight narrative, now, does it?)

On being Californian: "Latina women stop you in the street to ask what shampoo you use; 'Your hair is like mine,' they reach out to touch it, awed by the familiarity. They ask whether you are one of them–this time you don’t mind. They are mournful when you answer, 'No.' 'You’re pretty!' they exclaim. Please be possible, had been the unspoken hope. I can’t look white but I can look like you! I know, because I see the reflection of my desires on their faces."

Just like us: Introducing the eminently likeable celebrity as Every Girl, courtesy Courtney at Those Graces. I've read waaaay more than my share of celebrity profiles (for work, most of the time) and was snookered in by this trope at first—Wow, Jennifer Aniston sounds so normal! She's goofy and down-to-earth and wears pajama pants around the house! Jennifer Aniston—she's just like us! And then I noticed the same sentiment being applied to Courtney Cox, and Kate Hudson, and Claire Danes, and Reese Witherspoon, and so on until I had to conclude that the whole thing was a ploy. A casual observation, thoroughly not researched: Every so often celebrity profile writers will break this trope by being all, "Now THIS woman is a real STAR and she's so GLAMOROUS and UNTOUCHABLE." And off the top of my head, every time I've seen this done, it's a non-white celebrity. (Jennifer Lopez, Jennifer Hudson, and Beyoncé come to mind.) Do we want our black starlets to be unapproachable divas?

No, *You're* Already Pretty

Thanks to everyone who entered the Already Pretty giveaway! I went numerically-chronologically, starting with the-beheld.com, then e-mail entries from readers understandably frustrated by the Blogger comment system, then The New Inquiry, for a total of 33 entries. Using this random number generator, comment #3 is the winner: Congratulations, Monique!

And, as it happens, the entries yield some good style advice that, like Already Pretty, goes beyond the “here’s how to color-block”-type stuff that leaves me cold. Allow me to commandeer your words for a post, s’il vous plaît?




On Comfort
• If you're not comfortable in it, don't wear it. If you're not confident in the prettiest outfit, it will show.

• (1) Can I feel good in this at 2 p.m. after lunch and sitting at my desk? (2) Can I really walk in these shoes—I mean, for more than an hour?

• Always keep a backup pair of comfortable shoes around. I keep pairs in both my car and office. There's nothing worse than thinking you'll be comfortable all day in a pair of heels, then realize by 10 a.m. that your entire day is going to be ruined by them!

• My favorite piece of fashion advice actually came from a drag queen, of all people: "Heels are meant to be seen, not walked in. If no one can see them, like in a car, take them off! If you have to walk farther than the distance between the valet and the door to the club, you're with the wrong man."

• Err on the side of dressing "up." If I go somewhere and I'm not certain how to dress for the occasion, I have found that I sometimes feel uncomfortable if I'm under-dressed, but I never feel bad about being slightly over-dressed.

• Move all around and try sitting in the clothing in the dressing room at the store. If there is anything uncomfortable about the clothing or you don't love it, don't buy it.

• Find your "uniform," the combination of pieces that makes you feel most comfortable and attractive. Mine involves cardigans, tights, boots, and dresses/skirts.


On Color
• Wear color, lots of it, all over.

• Don’t be afraid to pick unusual colors together, like blue and orange.

• The first piece of fashion advice I ever remember was my mom telling my very young self to not combine more than three colors in an outfit, but she didn't explain the idea of neutrals. I'm still uncomfortable breaking this "rule"

• When I was a little girl I was always an eclectic dresser. I loved to wear red and orange together (they were next to each other in the rainbow so it was totally legit). Whenever my Mom got on my case about what I chose to wear to school my Dad would chime and say, "Let her wear what she wants. She'll be fine." And I was and still am today. Thanks, Dad.



On Attitude
• Look good to feel good. I've gone through cyclical phases over the last several years where I dress up, then slowly get lazier, and dress dowwwwn. Way down. When I start dressing up again, I'm always amazed at how peppy and positive I feel!

• If you want to look a certain way, do it. You don't have to follow the norm of what looks good. If you have big boobs and don't want to hide them, don't! If you have a big butt and want to show it off, do it! Make your own definition of gorgeous.

• Wear a smile.

• Too often, people think there is a RULE we must follow. I reject that attitude. Real style is individualized creativity and taste, not rigid conformity. For example, I'm not going to put a cardi and belt on my favorite dress just 'cause everyone else does that.

• "You don't have to be trendy to look fabulous." Nice for me because I'm not a fan of modern on-trend fashion.

• If you don't feel gorgeous in it, get rid of it. It's not you, it's the clothes—but why hang on to 'em if they make you feel less than perfect?

• Just wear what makes you feel good!

• Don't be afraid to try something new and creative.

• Dress joyfully.


On Pieces
• Invest in a great, high-quality coat. A great coat will always be great and will always make you feel great.

• Dresses let me look polished even though I feel like I'm wearing pajamas!

• I usually feel as if I'm wearing too much, or not enough clothing. They just feel like one of those philosophical issues I can't *really* wrap my head around. And the way they change within themselves—the same piece can feel and look wonderful one day, and be the worst items you could ever have chosen the next. Except for petticoats. Petticoats always make me feel jaunty.

• Clothing is the most versatile accessory.

• The very best advice—when you find something you just love, buy several (even in the same color, if that's part of what you love). Your first instinct is correct—you will never find anything to match it, and when it wears out, you will continue to wear it because you still love it. It's such a luxurious and virtuous feeling to throw out a worn out whatever and start using the identical new whatever.

• You should always think about how your new purchase fits into your existing wardrobe—a cheap blouse isn't cheap anymore if you have to buy new stuff as well to match it.



On Fit
• Don’t compromise on fit. It’s not you, it’s the clothes. This completely shocked me; I wasn't FAILING to fit the clothes?!?! There was nothing wrong with my body?! I’m 5’ 10” and have morphed slowly from a “boyish” figure (high school) to a more hourglassy one. And I struggled with buying clothes every step of the way, due to my height. I used to try on dozens of items, and when they were all too short, too small, bit into my skin in places, weren’t rescaled for height (more leg or sleeve just slapped on), I would wind up crying the change room and buying whatever item I liked the style of best, telling myself it didn't look that bad. Needless to say, I rarely wore them, and felt awkward and oversized when I did. Finally, the advice about fit being foremost sunk in. I purged my wardrobe of everything that didn’t fit properly. Now I try never to buy or wear anything that doesn’t fit properly. I feel comfortable in my clothes. They’re a little bland, because I still have trouble finding things in my size, but they’re a decent foundation, and I can see new possibilities from here.

• When I’m trying stuff on and nothing fits properly, I remember what my guy said, trying to coax me out of the change room after tearfully trying on 49 (yes, 49) pairs of spandex-free jeans (for wearing on my motorcycle) with no luck: “It’s not your fault they don’t know how to make clothes for goddesses!”

• Find the decade whose fashions flattered your particular body type, and look to re-create those silhouettes. I don't do a lot of vintage, but realizing that the shape of, say, the ’50s (small waists, full skirts, boatnecks, slim and tailored shoulders, etc) is a good one for me allows me to isolate items in a store without a lot of trying on, say, ’20s shapes (shifts, drop-waists, bias cuts, extra draping along the bust or collarbone), which require a lot more height and a lot less bust to read the way their designers intended. Now I just appreciate how nice all that draping looks on someone else, instead.

• The biggest fashion revelation I’ve ever made is the discovery that stores design and stock for an incredibly narrow range of body proportions. It's an old, creaky industry based on outdated notions. I've embraced custom, self-sewn dresses as my uniform since stores don't seem at all interested in dressing my body's proportions. Screw 'em.

• Clothes at the store don't fit everyone but me. They're not intended to fit everyone, and especially not me. To get a good fit, I need to alter them, which thankfully I know how to do.

• I don't have to look like an hourglass to look good. I can be okay with my big tummy, not try to squeeze it into something too small, and still look good.

• The fashion advice I try to keep in mind is the same advice I gave, in various forms, every day during my many years in retail: You are just right! If the dress is too tight, if the sweater is too loose, if the hem binds or the neckline gaps, if there are bulges and bumps, then the garment isn't right for you. But YOU are just right! It's disappointing but painless to leave behind a garment that doesn't work for you; it's painful and ultimately damaging to blame your body for that disappointment. Leave the disappointment behind with the garment; don't attach it to your body and take it home with you.


On Inspiration
• When I was living and working in the city at a hip workplace, I felt totally paralyzed about fashion and unable to take risks. I pined for a uniform, and basically created one for myself by wearing button up shirts and jeans every day. When I moved to a small town (and a new, less bundled-up climate) I suddenly felt way more free to experiment and I think my fashion has improved massively. I guess the "advice" I'd extrapolate from that is to remember that your style is a response to your environment, its a conversation with your culture. If you don't like your part in the conversation, maybe the relationship needs shaking up.

• Your clothing has to work with what you do, not just how you look.

• I think the best advice I've heard is an interpretation from the great (though defunct) fashion site academichic.com. Inspired by their challenge to readers to create an outfit inspired by a book cover, I've found that it's really helpful to look for inspiration outside of women's fashion magazines/websites. Color palettes can be found in nature, cookbooks, art, book covers, etc; same for textures and even shapes. To really radicalize your perspective on contemporary fashion, look at fashion (men and women's!) from different decades or eras. Broadening your inspiration sources can really invigorate and freshen your wardrobe, and also can help disentangle some of the negative body messages that come from more standard fashion inspiration sources.

Beauty Blogosphere 8.3.12

What's going on in beauty this week, from head to toe and everything in between.


From Head...
Saving the day:
Introducing the world's first natural-hair comic strip, Kinky & Carl E. Stranz.

...To Toe...
Pachyderm pedi: Elephant pedicure video. (Why doesn't someone feed me apples when I get a pedicure?)

...And Everything In Between:
Digital ladies: L'Oréal is launching a program that sounds promising: the L'Oréal Women in Digital Program, which rewards female tech innovators in the beauty industry. Not that I want female tech innovators to be siphoned off by L'Oréal instead of developing programs for broader application, but I definitely don't want techie beauty gadgets developed by people who have never worn the products in question either, you know? (That's probably how we came up with these so-bad-they're-great digital makeovers, after all.)

Avon falling: Avon is at an all-time low, with a 9% revenue fall from last quarter. The new CEO is hinting that major restructuring lies ahead; the question is whether that "restructuring" includes a doubling back on Coty's buyout offer from earlier this year.

Color me impressed: Gorgeous Crayola makeup product design. If half of what we're paying for with cosmetics is marketing, can we at least make them all look this good?

See the pyramids: Virginia Sole-Smith continues to shed light on the world of Mary Kay, this week with a look at the direct sales business as a whole. Are you surprised that it's not a pretty picture?

The ventures: How small east Asian brands are rising thanks to more global attention on major Asian lines like Shiseido. Certainly I'm a sucker for those "beauty goodies from around the world" features that crop up in ladymags every so often; seems I'm not alone. Similarly, India's beauty industry is catching investors' eyes, and for good reason: With low overhead and a steadily growing middle class, startup Indian beauty companies are thriving.

Veggie tales: Women diagnosed with an eating disorder are four times likelier than non-disordered women to be vegetarian. I've stayed away from this on my blog for the most part, because I know there are plenty of positive motivations for being a vegetarian or vegan, and going down this path is sure to invite healthy vegetarians to defend themselves when I have no interest in attacking anyone's actual motivation for being a vegetarian. What I will say is that most—not all, but literally most—women I know who are vegetarians have also had some troubling food patterns, if not a full-blown eating disorder. (Conversely, one of the women whom I perceive as having a wholly healthy relationship with food is a vegan, so.) Vegetarianism is a way of controlling food; eating disorders are all about controlling food. I don't want to delegitimize vegetarianism, but people, we need to be able to talk about this, because as-is vegetarianism is often seen as a way of being "good." Do any of us want to reinforce to people with eating disorders that their patterns are good?

Portlandia: The best and worst American cities for your skin. #1 is Portland, Oregon, which shouldn't add to its superiority complex or anything. (Via Makeup Museum)

Tip of the season: You can't rely on SPF cosmetics to protect you from the sun. 

Also, diaper cream: Roundup of embarrassing beauty products people keep in their bags. If only I'd made a bet about not being the only person alive who carries around lip gloss from the '90s!

Darling gal: Big congratulations to Gala Darling—whose take on "radical self-love" somehow manages to be soaring, sincere, grounded, and whimsical all at once—for being named beauty and style editor at xoJane.com. I'm pleased to hear this because I'm a big fan of Gala's, but I've had my problems with xoJane, specifically what looked like exploitation of an addict in the supposed name of "honesty." That said, "honesty" of the page-view variety at the site has always been matched at least point for point by emotionally ambivalent pieces that I truly appreciate, often in the form of searing personal essays. I quietly vowed not to link to them because I was saddened by the Cat Marnell situation (and often horrified by Marnell's advice), but every time I'd see a particularly strong piece I'd question my decision. With Gala's announcement, I'm ready to give xoJane another chance. I trust her implicitly and know she'll bring a host of interesting content to the site. More to the point, if she's working for them, they're doing something right, and that something can overcome my initial misgivings. Make us all proud, Ms. Darling!


Heavy lifting: Olympic weightlifter Zoe Smith gives a spot-on retort to the people who raise eyebrows at the changes weightlifting causes in a woman's body: "We don’t lift weights in order to look hot, especially for the likes of men like that. What makes them think that we even WANT them to find us attractive? If you do, thanks very much, we’re flattered. But if you don’t, why do you really need to voice this opinion in the first place, and what makes you think we actually give a toss that you, personally, do not find us attractive?" (via Feminist Philosophers)

Special delivery: California beauty boutique robbed via mail slot. (If only Scully and Mulder were on the case...)

Eau de Narcissus: Meet the Hu-Mannequin, a device that funnels your personal scent into a clothing mannequin in order to...get you to buy more clothes? Or something. To be honest, I don't really get it. What I do know is this: 1) I would be very, very curious to know how a synthesized version of my personal scent would smell, and 2) The company is counting on this exact mix of curiosity and narcissism to pull a profit.

Eco-beauty: Why hasn't anyone thought of this before? Refillable makeup cartridges, at Sephora, created by a student of industrial design.

Vadge of honor: Congratulations to Miss Atlas, owner of the world's most beautiful vagina

Stet: Kim Kardashian says her fantasy job—because the occupation of being Kim Kardashian is so, you know, banal—is makeup artist. Meanwhile, Emma Stone, face of Revlon, cites her fantasy job as copy editor. (Girl knows how to par-tay!)

Marilyn's mark: This is basically a press release, but an interesting one: the enduring legacy of Marilyn Monroe's beauty mark. Related: Why doesn't whoever spun "mole" into "beauty mark" take a look at cellulite next? "Dimples of Venus," anyone? 

Gamine gaze: In her typically clear-eyed manner, Phoebe asks why we're sometimes eager to conflate body type with personal style. "A woman with an hourglass physique, whatever her bedroom activities or lack thereof, is thought to dress to please men, whereas the more straight-up-and-down have the option of dressing for other women/for themselves." (Should this sound outdated, may I point you toward Debralee Lorenzana, who was fired from Citibank in 2009 for wearing "distracting" clothing—you know, like fitted business suits.)

Beauty Blogosphere 7.27.12

What's going on in beauty this week, from head to toe and everything in between.


Satisfied Latisse customer.

From Head...
Batty: Makers of eyelash-growth drug Latisse got grumpy about RevitaLash eyelash conditioner and filed a suit against RevitaLash claiming it was a drug, not a cosmetic, and therefore subject to the same regulation as Latisse. RevitaLash lost in district court this week. My greatest dream from here is that the company challenges the ruling and the case gets all the way to the Supreme Court so that we can watch Ruth Bader Ginsburg try to keep a straight face while hearing about the tragedies of "eyelash hypotrichosis," a "medical" "condition" totally made up by the Latisse peeps 


...To Toe... 
Home sweet home: Whenever I play "If I were rich I would ____," I fill it in with get massages as often as humanly possible. But if you fill yours in with have my toenail polish changed every day for eternity in the sanctity of my home, you might want to look into this for-sale Philadelphia home, featuring...two pedicure stations. 


...And Everything In Between:  
Beauty geek alert: Pantone and Sephora have collaborated on a system that will allow women to scan their faces to receive a unique, color-corrected skin profile, thus helping them buy shades that perfectly match their skin. Speaking as someone who still mourns the loss of the Prescriptives line, which produced The One Perfect Concealer For Me, this is fantastic news (even if the idea of having my face scanned is off-puttingly futuristic). The program will launch out in NYC and San Francisco soon, with full-roll out to come. 

Beauty fail: Canadian drugstore chain Shoppers faces losses after their experiment with high-end beauty failed to pan out.  

Big moves: Coty gets a new CEO on the heels of some uncharacteristically high-profile moves (a massive takeover bid for Avon, fragrance collaboration with Lady Gaga). 

Salary range: Why do aestheticians in Atlanta make roughly half as much as those in Colorado, as shown in this salon-industry infographic? My first thought was race and the devaluation of black women's work, but Atlanta has a similar demographic makeup to Washington D.C., where aestheticians make far more than they do in Atlanta. Thoughts?  

B Just: Loving this beauty company: Just B–B Just, which is staffed almost entirely by people who used to be homeless. Business skills are taught on the job, and best of all, it was founded by a resource center and driven by a woman who was homeless at one point in her life, not someone who might just be un peu d'exploitative of people in need in order to look like the good guy. (Plus, cedarwood-sage soap, yum.) 

Take two: I've heard of recycled cosmetics packaging before, but not products actually made from recycled materials. But why not? It's the next step up from the whole "keep your coffee grounds for a yummy body scrub" business that has earned many a teen girl a shower that smells like stale coffee. (Not just me, right?) 

Cut It Out: Trade organization Professional Beauty Association has what sounds like an innovative, important program: Cut It Out, a domestic violence education and awareness program. One of the keys to ending intimate partner violence is understanding that many victims are isolated; if you want to help, you've got to find them in places where they're both safe and not raising their abuser's suspicion—like, say, a hair salon. I've never seen brochures about relationship violence in a salon but have seen materials in women's bathrooms and the like—it's a splendid idea, a way to signal to people being abused that they're in a safe place. Thanks to salon chain Great Clips, which recently donated $100,000 to the program.

Click-n-sniff: The State's collection of writings on perfume and scent is a veritable garden of reading pleasure. (Is a roundup featuring a roundup too much? Has the Internet just imploded?) 

Phallic casts of the 2008 Iceland national handball team, cast in silver for the Icelandic Phallological Museum

Measuring up: Rachel Rabbit White looks into a quietly tittered-over body image problem for men: penis size. It's something I've only heard discussed in body-image terms in intimate relationships, and I can't help but wonder what that means for the men who have this anxiety. It's good that they can confide in intimate partners, but if my own experience with body image is any indication, the person who knows your body most intimately also brings a lot of their own stuff to the table.

Purged: Demi Lovato, as a part of her long-term recovery plan from an eating disorder, has surrendered her cell phone. Part of what eating disorders do is numb and distract its sufferers; it's not a stretch to see how the mini-computers we insist upon still calling "cell phones" do much the same thing.  

Photoshopper: Interview with a photo retoucher: "The skin retouching and smoothing is the most deceiving thing, but if we stopped doing that now, you'd flip through your magazine and say, oh my God, honey you need to put on some makeup. To stop doing it now would be so noticeable." And it's true. I'm not as anti-retouching as some of my colleagues in the blogosphere, for reasons much like this interview points out: Creating an image that's basically collage isn't exactly the problem, it's the lack of understanding of how retouching actually works that allows us to interpret photographs as reality instead of as something more akin to illustrations. 

Natural/beauty: Blisstree hits it on the head again with its examination of the connection between "green" beauty and feminism. Call it an (accidental?) offshoot of ecofeminism, but they're onto something here: It's no coincidence that so many natural beauty lines were not only founded by women but remain woman-helmed to this day. But it's not just that (it's not like everything owned by a woman is feminist); it's that investing yourself in what you're putting on your body can actually transform the way you think about yourself. I keep bringing up this quote from No More Dirty Looks' Siobhan O'Connor, but it's only because I love it so much: "Something inside both of us transformed over the course of writing and constantly thinking about beauty and our relationship to it—every woman’s relationship to it. We’ve seen a lot of people fight their natural look. And it’s cheesy to say, but you know what it’s like when you see a really healthy woman, regardless of the shape of her nose or her body, and you’re like, whoa. There’s health and joy, smiles and truth—it’s one of the most beautiful things in the world. Natural beauty can go beyond products; it’s about stripping all that other stuff away and just taking joy in the natural curl of your hair or the natural glow of your skin."

On eating alone: Sometimes it can literally take my breath away when I hear or read someone else sum up my own struggles in just a few words. This time, it's Mara of Medicinal Marzipan who leaves me breathless: "Why do I hate sitting here and eating quietly, in my own space and solitude? Because it feels like a punishment." 

An apple a day: New hair straightening treatment: apple stem cells, culled from the rare Swiss strain Uttwiler Spätlauber. 
 It's a glamour bonnet, like, duh.
Glamour bonnet: Best-ever collection of bizarre vintage beauty apparatuses. Glamour bonnets! Dimple-makers! Perm machines! And yes, I'm certain that the featured 1921 "home electric massage vibrator" was indeed "as necessary as the brushing of your teeth." 

The most wanted face: Through a poll of beauty industry professionals and plastic surgeons, we have the most requested face, a collection of features most asked-for by clients. (Kylie Minogue has the world's most wanted forehead? Really?) (As far as mash-ups of "most wanted" features, I'll always prefer the exquisite—and bizarrely listenable—22-minute song of the world's "Most Unwanted Music." So worth a listen.)

ED bytes: Excellent piece that gives context and insight into the new direction of pro-eating-disorder sites; I'd say it's a must-read for anyone concerned with social media or eating disorders. "The translation of pro-ana communities from the language of the message board to these more image-based aggregation platforms is a tragic variable in the world of social media. With the rise in fluidity, flexibility, and simplicity, communities are no longer bound by a single website. ... [T]he ease with which the community has adapted its rationale across platforms is worth noting, particularly in light of the subculture’s habit of reinterpreting existing medical terminology. The anonymity that once proved seductive for so many is beginning to dissipate." 

"Damn good-looking": This character analysis of Brett, or Lady Ashley, from The Sun Also Rises, helped me understand why I was so entranced by the character when I first encountered her at age 16: "Subconsciously, perhaps, Brett’s appeal also lies in that her true allure, her charm and sexual confidence, can be channeled by anyone, even those of us who don’t feel conventionally attractive." (via Lauren Cerand) 

Tatterhood: Leave it to the Threadbared team to make me want to ferry it out to Governors Island in New York to see a bunch of tattered old clothes on exhibit for the last time before they're retired from museums, too ragged to be considered museum-quality any longer. "The organizational structures of museums (from the public arrangement of displays to the behind-the-scenes preservation of the objects) reflect and reproduce a dominant value system about what objects are beautiful, valuable, and worth protecting. But if clothing functions as a material sign of social status and a site of knowledge production about the meanings of beauty, value, and worth, then the choice of which clothes are worth saving and studying is also a decision about what kinds of lives are valuable and worth remembering." 

On femininity: Forget commentary, I'll just let Nahida speak for herself here: "To what standard do you strive, but that set by men to say that masculinity is the ideal to which all women should aspire? Let women define what it is to be a lady, strength and fearlessness and love. Let us be who we are, manly women and womanly women and womanly men and manly men. This is to remind us whatever is feminine is of equal worth, not to be abandoned. Say the word orgasm and smile crookedly when it reminds you of hotels in July." 


#nodads: Amy Poehler on makeup and daaaaaaads who won't let you wear it. (via About-Face) 

Sex it up: Yes, beauty and fashion are connected to sex. But as Danielle illustrates in this mini-treatise on sex, visibility, and constructed identities, they're not connected in the way you might think they are. 

Huzzzah!: Hourglassy celebrates the world's largest natural breasts. Even better is that the owner of these 102ZZZs celebrates them too. 

Heya dollface: Why are mannequins so creepy?

Pretty baby: The bad news: Six-year-old girls are sexualizing themselves. The good news: There's a possibility that body awareness—like dance classes—can help them see their bodies as something more than a vehicle for sexiness. Little girls and dance classes sometimes get a bad rap in feminist circles, and surely there are a good number of dance teachers who tsk-tsk at belly pooches. But for the most part, dance classes are fun—and for girls like me, who hated gym class with an enduring passion, it was the only exercise I got. So! (via Feminist Philosophers)

Already Pretty Giveaway




If you’ve been reading this blog for any length of time, you’re well aware of my admiration for Sally McGraw, the mind behind Already Pretty. The fashion blogs I read are few and far between: Unless it’s fashion history and theory like Final Fashion, or fashion politics and philosophy like Threadbared, in general I’m just not interested. Looking current means little to me (most of my clothing is vintage-inspired if not actually vintage), and once I figured out what looks work on me, I figured out where to shop and rarely visit new stores. Creature of habit, I suppose, leaving me with little purpose for fashion blogs.

But when I stumbled across Sally’s work, something clicked. Here was a voice that wasn’t just articulate and strong but feminist, and forthrightly so. Instead of just chirping about “loving your body” (which, half the time, I think is an empty phrase—what exactly does that mean?), everything on Already Pretty surged toward the larger goal of increasing confidence through the development of personal style. Whether it’s an essay on the flip side of envy, a tutorial on winter tights (leading to my SmartWool purchase), or her way of identifying why certain visual principles work the way they do without adopting the tone of rap-on-knuckles style schoolmarm I’ve seen time and again elsewhere, in reading Sally’s blog I felt like I had someone in my corner. Because, like any reader of Already Pretty, I do.

That said, sometimes style advice comes best in a package instead of in a daily blog—or maybe not best, but most handy. And Sally’s book, Already Pretty, is just that. Here, my three favorite points in the book:

1) No, there’s no all-purpose “must-have” list. Finally, confirmation of what I’ve suspected for years: No, I don’t need a suit, no matter what say those “basics every woman needs” lists that crop up every so often in ladymags. There is no universe in which I would need a suit—no job interview, no meeting, no business occasion in which I would ever, ever need a suit, something I wish I’d realized before buying a ridiculous little suit my last semester of college because all the fashion magazines told me I needed to, leaving me with a cheap polyester suit that made me look woefully out of place at the job I’d bought it for. (Hell, I don’t even own any button-downs, as they make me look like a 12-year-old boy, something that no other item of clothing has managed to do, ever, including baseball tees.)

2) Look good, feel good. This is something I misunderstood when I was younger, and by younger I actually mean when I started this blog at the beginning of 2011. I knew that I felt my best when I looked my best, but I thought that was something to sort of work against, because it was somehow a capitulation to the beauty myth. It was only upon articulating my thoughts here that I recognized that didn’t need to be something to work against; it could be something to work for—not working to stick to some sort of societal ideal of beauty, but rather to look how I feel my best. Which could mean jeans and a T-shirt that fits me well and that doesn’t make me feel self-conscious about my belly pooch, or a cocktail dress that skims over my midsection and shows off the parts of my body that I’m a touch vain about. Point is: When I started making a point of dressing my best on days I felt down in the dumps, instead of “saving” my “good” clothes for days I had more confidence and therefore wouldn’t mind being looked at, I noticed how easily the appearance of confidence (at least, what I associated with confidence) transferred to the reality. Yes, of course feeling good from the inside out is crucial. But sometimes it can come from the outside in.

3) “Figure flattery” doesn’t have to mean “skinny, busty, tall, and hipless.” Sometimes it might mean that, sure. But as Sally points out (and which was one of my biggest “aha!” moments in reading), flattery can mean so much more: clothing that lies flat against your body, clothing that doesn’t pinch or pull, colors that make your skin and features look more vibrant. On top of that, sometimes we may want to play with the proportions we have to create different kinds of “flattering” looks: The dress I’m wearing today has a flounce at the bottom, which makes me look hippier than I usually prefer to look, but with its polka-dot print and cigarette-girl styling, it’s super-flattering because it makes me look curvy. But the sheath dress I wore to a dinner this weekend minimizes my hips, giving me a straighter, slimmer look all around. In my pencil dress I prefer to look as busty; in a slipdress I prefer less contour. All of these looks work on my body, but in an entirely different way, and the way Sally approaches the concept of figure flattery makes this clear.

So those are some key points I got from the book. Now (and here’s the giveaway part) what will you get from it? Sally will be giving away a signed copy of Already Pretty to a reader of The Beheld chosen at random from all comments on this post (whether at the-beheld.com, The New Inquiry, or Open Salon). Just leave a comment on this entry by 11:59 p.m. EST Wednesday, August 1. All comments will receive a giveaway entry (which will be chosen at random from an online number generator), but to keep it interesting, why don’t you leave a comment with your most favorite—or least favorite—piece of fashion advice, whether from your own mind or someone else’s? My favorite: Wear dresses whenever possible. People often think I’m dressed up; little do they know I’m just too lazy to pick out two separate pieces! Least favorite: “A-line dresses work on all figures!” Yeah, except mine. Your turn.