From: mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:26:10 GMT

[stuff about cosmetics]
>>>Read some Naomi Wolf sometime.
>> 
>>Does Naomi Wolfe use cosmetics?  She doesn't seem to avoid jewelry...
>
>Good point.  When Wolfe's book first came out, I recall several women 
>reviewers who felt that she had chosen a small point (the pressure to 
>be beautiful and the role played in this by cosmetics) to harp on for a 
>couple hundred pages compared to some of the larger issues and _oppressions_ 
>women have had to deal with.  Although I have not read her book, I have 

The issue of cosmetics ties in with the more general one of body image.
Trivial? Not if you consider the incidence of anorexia and bulemia 
(dangerous and often life-threatening disorders) in women and teenage 
girls in this country. 

>heard and read interviews with her, and seen her on talk-shows so I believe 
>I understand her thesis.  She clearly, and in a somewhat reductionist 
>fashion, finds the motivation for women's preoccupations with beauty, and 
>in some cases the unhappiness that results, is subtley brought about by a 
                                                ^^^^^^^
>society that overly values certain looks and expects its women to achieve 
>those looks - at practically any cost.

Subtly? If you don't notice it, that can only be because the culture is
saturated with it. From random harassment on the street to fat jokes in
stand-up comedy to _Cosmopolitan_, a rigid set of beauty criteria gets
reinforced *all the time*.

[stuff about external vs. internal]

>If we start by saying that a particular woman wears makeup in an 
>uncomfortable response to some pressure, it becomes important to determine 
>just where the pressure comes from - inside or outside.
>
>It's quite often *too* easy to point a finger at the vague, formless, 
>undefinable _thing_ called society, because none of us (men or women) like 
>to find the role our own weaknesses play in our difficulties.  That's not 
>to say that suppression and oppression do not exist.  But to really get at 
>the root of something, I think we need to point the finger in the right 
>direction.

It's well & good to say that we should all have the strength to shrug off
a load of societal values, but it isn't that simple. Do you remember what
it was like in adolescence? The intense pressure to conform, the way people 
got ostracized? People go through life with this garbage.

>Even if Wolfe is wrong (which I clearly think she is), that does not change 
>the fact that some or many women are still suppressed/oppressed by the men 
>(and women) in their lives; and if she is correct then an investigation has 
>to be made into the differences between (a) those women whose makeup use is 
>subtly forced on them by others' sense of beauty, and (b) those women who are not 
>preternaturally concerned or unhappy with their looks (regardless of their 
>makeup use) living in the same society.  I believe it is some difference 
>between (a) and (b) that will explain what is going on.

That's like asking why some people come out and others stay in the
closet. Some of us are just a little more courageous or have a little
less to lose. The *problem* (which, yes, IMO is societal) remains.

_______________________________________________________________________________
"There was nothing to be    |  Michael Wasson     | "'Dead-on balls accurate'?"
done; a circumstance that   |  U of Hawaii        | "It's an industry term."
happily suited our disin-   |     and             | (from My Cousin Vinny)
clination to do anything."  |  Fat Messiah Games, |____________________________
--Herman Melville           |  S. Pacific HQ      | [standard disclaimer]
_______________________________________________________________________________










Newsgroups: alt.feminism,talk.bizarre