Critisizing Plain Jane part 7: Episode 1 final part

Part 1: Introduction on why I hate these kind of reality makeover shows

Part 2: Opening credits

Part 3: Episode 1 part I

Part 4: Episode 1 part II

Part 5: Episode 1 part III
Part 6: Episode 1 part IV

At last - The final part of my review-commentary of the first episode of this horrific makeover show...

Part V:

-Summary: Cristen's makeover and training is nearly finished! She has learned that her own choice of comfy clothes and her hobbies make her look like a man (Women can't dress comfy and the only feminine hobbies are make-up and shopping!). She has somehow agreed to go through a ridiculous torture phobia experiment for the viewers' entertainment and a warped vision of what her priorities are in life. She has conformed to a one-choice-only compulsory ideal of how women should be dressing - High heels very much included. She has learned to objectify herself for men in a burlesque club as a key part in her training. And she has learned to flirt with strangers while being zapped like an animal in training.
 Now only her physical makeover remains! Because women, take note: You are never enough, and your hair and face will always need chemical products and make-up in order to make you look attractive.

"This is it! This is the transformation! Big time, OK!"

Are we in the Capitol, by any chance? Nope, Effie is way more awesome. Duh.

As the first part of the physical makeover, the stylist takes Cristen to an 'amazing hair stylist' and a 'stylist to the stars' in order to change her hair.

Cristen is 'terrified', and she says that she 'has never dyed her hair' and judging by her body language and her state of panic, she very obviously doesn't want to. Another similar reaction to the one that she showed in the burlesque club. But we don't care what her boundaries and personal choices are (Louise the stylist jokes 'Look, she is shaking, this is worst than the snails!'), she should 'trust' them and she'll end up loving everything they do to her anyway, because that's what the non-existent logic of the show is about - a logic based on lack of consent, brainwashing, gaslighting and mental manipulation, by the way.

Consent doesn't matter because she's going to love it all anyway

-Discussion-rant: Now, long hair natural haircare is one of my biggest hobbies, and the way society tells women to treat their hair to be considered as attractive totally bugs me. Apart from the use of a lot of needless and potentially harmful chemicals in shampoos, conditioner and various 'hair treatments', it's all about:

 'Let's dye your hair with non-hair-friendly chemicals because your natural hair-colour is not good enough!'

 'Let's change your natural texture, not for fun, but because your own natural texture is not good enough!'

'Let's break and dry out and destroy your hair with heat tools, horrible brushes, backcombing and unnecessary chemical-ridden products! By the way, I’m a professional hair stylist and/or I work with celebrities.
’
And, of course, the classical 'Let's cut your hair shorter, it's too damn long and/or weird and/or apparently not sexy enough!', or the alternative ‘You should grow your hair longer or wear extensions, short hair is not feminine enough!’

This doesn't have anything to do with a woman dyeing, texturing or cutting/adding extensions/growing out her hair, for her own reasons and wishes, without anybody telling her she can only do so-and-so to her hair in order to look 'attractive' and thus 'socially accepted' (even though societal constructs will always have a degree of influence, our choices never come from the void). I can criticize the potentially harmful heat methods and chemical dyes in a general way, but that's about it, and it's her hair anyway, not mine. Not my business. 

What I can't stand is people (and society in general) telling us an interesting variety of lies, such as -

 1) The only way to grow long healthy hair is to buy our expensive and chemical-ridden treatments. Heat methods won't harm your hair as long as you use more chemical-ridden heat protection which doesn't even work. Backcombing the length and ends doesn't cause breakage. Using lots of alcohol-based products such as hairspray in a daily basis isn't bad for the hair. Etc.

(Stylist) 'You've never had (your hair) cut at the salon? This is like a dream come true!'

Because hair salons are sooooo hair-friendly and all the hair stylists are soooo capable and hair-knowledgeable, and because preferring to trim your own hair at home equals an awkward, messy, unattractive personality. I see.

2) And, more importantly, what they're telling us is: You are not good enough, you should conform to society’s idiotic rules all the time, and everything you do is focused on boosting your attractiveness so that men are interested in you and your life has value.

Me neither, Mycroft

Why exactly does Cristen need to dye her hair? She already had lovely dark reddish blonette hair last time I looked. What's this mania of dyeing everyone's hair every time? Is it red(dish) hair-hate, that is 'red and reddish hair is ugly' (something which I'll never be able to comprehend)? That's not particularly boosting anyone's self-confidence, if you're telling me her natural hair-colour is not enough, and her texture is not enough. And you're not taking into account what she wants. It's not because she fancies a change or wants to have fun with her hair. And let's not talk about how you're actually destroying her hair with the chemicals and heat and the tools.

She has "a lot of hair", so she's getting it layered. Naturally. Because thick hair is ugly, right? And if you have thin hair, you get extensions and backcombing and volumizing mousses. Because thin hair is ugly, right? The general message seems to be: Never feel confident about who you are to begin with.

Cristen is in a fit of hysterics (about everything, it seems) about someone changing her hair. Shouldn't this raise a few red flags? 'I've never changed my hair...OK, just do it! Just do it before I change my mind!'

That's interesting. Sounds like she was allowed to make her own mind about anything in the first place! Which she wasn't.

And I repeat, why colour it? Like, why? Does she even need it for a freaking date?  It's not even her choice! The message that she has to change her hair for her crush is freaking oppressive and sexist.

"Hello, brunette, goodbye blond". First of all, her hair-colour is more dark strawberry blonette than just 'blond', in my opinion. But anyway, why exactly has she got to turn brunette in order to get off with this guy? Is she going to look sexier if she's dark-haired? Will she flirt better? Does the guy need to see her changed to like her? Is this the ‘dumb blonde’ stereotype at work? We’re not over it yet, apparently.

"Your skin looks so much better" Nice way to tell this increasingly insecure girl that she’s going to have to keep dying her hair for her whole life because the guy would prefer her like that, and her skin looks so much better! Good job.

Oh, and good to know that apparently brunettes have more fun, because I’m not having a lot of fun right now. All I can say right now is -

Rose Tyler doesn't agree with all this rubbish

 While the 'celebrity stylist' begins ruining her hair needlessly with chemicals, he asks about her date, so we get another scene dedicated to glorify Tye, corny music included.
'He's tall, dark and handsome. He's just a really good guy, everybody likes him, anywhere you take him people always like him (...) And I'm really terrified.'
'He's wonderful in any way, and I'm terrified because I don't know if I'll be able to change enough for him to approve of  me'. How wonderful.

And so far, the only compliment she is getting is being told that she is 'gorgeous' when she conforms to the beauty standards Sexist Stylist and Co. impose upon her.

And like I mentioned before, a makeover includes either a haircut or extensions. I get mixed messages about this. Long hair is "sexy", apparently, but people always end up cutting, because 'too long' hair isn't all that sexy (and here, with too long hair we're talking about...BSL? In long hair forum standards, that’s not ‘too long hair’ at.all xD). But shorter hair isn’t all that “sexy” either, judging by the number of people who are forced to wear extensions in makeovers like this. Not to mention that short hair is deemed 'tomboyish' and 'unfeminine'. Guess there's no point in trying to understand their logic.

And of course, straighten it, then add waves again. Completely logical, I know. Anyway, always change your natural texture (even if you're sorta reverting to it in the end). Why not destroy your hair alongside your confidence and healthy mindset?

(Stylist) 'Thank you (...), this is just what I wanted' You, not her. Interesting that you don't even try to hide that.
"You're not gonna see yourself until the transformation is complete"
"You're my confident, elegant woman. You're my star tonight, you're the princess" 
You're on display, my dear, I'm sorry. Nobody cares about what you think about all these changes. You're supposed to love them, anyway, and they’re not for you, after all.

I'm so happy to be on display and to have my hair forcibly changed just for a guy!

Cristen and the stylist leave in a luxurious limusine car, making Cristen go 'wooooow'. She also gets ready (make-up and dress) in a penthouse suite. Interesting how people bribe and ensnare women into their suffocating gender roles and passive attitudes with pretty dresses, luxurious stuff (cars, penthouses, hotels, trips, cruises, rings, you name it), and parties. The whole structure of weddings and children's fairytales (Cinderella) easily fall into this sort of strategies. Looks like we can't wear a pretty dress or go to a party, without also having to fit into a lot of suffocating feminine roles and social obligations and bindings.

In the limusine, the stylist urges Cristen to really think what's she's going to say to Tye during their date, because she 'only has one shot'. Because Tye is always going to be the one in control of all the decisions, the one who decides if he wants Cristen or not. Like Cristen replies, 'No pressure!' Not only that, but also - Hell of a healthy equal relationship, if you have to undergo an intensive makeover and worry endlessly about the guy maybe not wanting you!

Also, featuring Cristen being brainwashed and, in turn, brainwashing other girls with her warped version of what 'confidence' is:
(Stylist) 'Think about all the things you've learned in the last 48 hours. The new you, the confident you.'
(Cristen) 'I am feeling a lot more confident after all the crazy things you made me do (laughs)! I've started to realize that well, if I can do all these things I didn't think I could do, maybe I can tell Tye.'

The next part of the makeover is, of course, the compulsory make-up session. Because women always have to wear make-up so that men find them acceptably and sufficiently attractive. Fake eyelashes, obviously. Everything she doesn't really need, all in order to make her think she is not enough. Also, on a different note, the stylists and hairdresser's in this wonderful show seem to do a pretty sloppish and slapdash job most of the time, in my opinion. So much for being 'professional'.

Make-up should be a choice and something women did for fun and for themselves, although it's also a 'choice' which has its roots in the femininity construct of our current society, something that choice feminism forgets (issue discussed here). ). Make-up is not a 'feminist' choice, because it does nothing to subvert the status quo, but it certainly shouldn't be something we put on our faces for other people (and mainly men) as the only way to feel attractive and make others see us as attractive.

"Oh my gosh! You look like a princess!" exclaims the stylist as soon as she sees Cristen with her make-up on. The only kind of compliment she needs, and she'll only get it if she dyes her hair and puts make-up on, of course.

Cristen is at last allowed to look in the mirror, now that hair and make-up are all done, and she has her dress and high heels on.  She's now "A sexy brunette" (apparently brunettes are the only ones allowed to be 'sexy') and Cristen, with a corny musical background, exclaims -

"Wow! I don't look like myself (who I was before was all wrong, it wasn't the real me until someone forced all this on me). I kinda look like a movie star"

This is who I wanted to be all along, I just needed someone to force it on me!

No offense, but she actually doesn't look that different, apart from the fact that they have forced a new clothing style (seriously, what a hideous dress *cringes*) and hair-colour on her, and apart from the fact that she is wearing (sloppy) make-up. I actually think she was way more beautiful before (if she had chosen these changes, I woudn’t even state my inner opinion, because I also hate the 'you always look better in your natural state' aggressive approach, but it wasn't her choice).  And pray, continue telling us how this makeover has shown her how she really is, and that all these useful tips she's been getting has made her more confident. Do you forget that this is all for a freaking guy? What is that? That that's women's role in life, to go through makeovers for  men? Oh yes, I see, sorry, didn't realize that.

Basically, what this stylist does is taking impressionable girls and forcing HER own style on them, plus a lot of sexist bullshit >_<

"Is that person sexy? Is that person a woman? Is she confident? She ready to get the man she loves?"
Seriously. Shut up.

-You're  saying she wasn't a woman before (well, she wasn’t, was she, she was a man because she wore plaid shirts and played the guitar and had male friends!).

-You're saying makeovers fix anything. Way to go, telling that to an impressionable young woman.

-You're saying a woman without a makeover is basically not confident or a woman.

-You're saying the word 'love' when you shouldn't even use that word in this freaking shallow, sexist context.

-You're saying that a woman should do all this when she has a crush or wants to date someone. Cristen is only be 'ready to get the man she loves has a crush on' after she's had a makeover.

Has Tye gotten a makeover? Nope. He also doesn't really mind he's going on a blind date. He says he's 'a little apprehensive', but "I guess it could go either way". Yeah, he definitely feels no pressure, he hasn't got to change in any way and he is in power to choose if he wants the girl or not. And I get it, many men have been taught not to make a difference as long as the woman in question is sexy, so what does it matter which woman is presented to him? We learn afterwards that Tye actually liked Cristen in a romantic way, so - Why is he so cool to date a random woman in a blind date? He must really like Cristen all right. Also, he isn't called 'shy' or 'awkward' for not talking to her about it, either.

Oh, enter sickly romantic music and clichéd candlelit dinner scenario. Yay.

Tye is waiting in comfy clothes, seated and drinking wine. Close-up of her high-heels as she goes down the stairs (such an important part of a woman! It's almost as if all those high-heeled close-ups in the media are dehumanized, although I'm sure that isn't the case *sarcasm*).

Because she's a 'woman' now, not a 'guy' in comfy shoes.

Tye, depicted as your stereotypical (and unfortunately, often not that stereotypical) shallow and traditionally 'masculine' guy, gapes and goes "Oh my goodness, you look incredible!" Basically the only thing that matters. Cristen follows his cue, replying with a "Really??" that desperately needs his approval. Hell of a lot of confidence she has gained.

Ideal relationship: Her undergoing a full makeover so that he can only see her as a pretty shell.

Tye keeps on talking about how astounded and satisfied he is about her makeover: "Your hair!  Aaaah! Yeah! Wow! Oh my god! I am astounded! I don't know what to say"

Apart from being astounded by her makeover-red appearance, you mean? Clearly.

Yay gentlemanly chivalry. He has to get the chair for her, handle the champagne. That's the prize you get for having a makeover, girls. Just be pretty and submissive, he'll treat you in a chivalrous (and patronizing) way and ‘do everything for you’ (hell of a role for a man as well). Cristen's role is that of a pretty object who giggles and laughs at his every comment. An ideal role-model and so confident. Meanwhile, our favourite stylist is stalking the whole thing.

Doing everything for him in exchange for him assuming I'm so useless  I can't even sit without help. Seems legit.

'Awwww...He's so cute!!'

Tye keeps an entitled (and very dumb) smirk all the time. Dude is pretty much an idiot, but nothing is expected of him, so that's OK. Cristen, now that she's ready with her makeover, begins telling him she likes him, and once again, we hear how wonderful this guy is. He's a wonderful friend, apparently. Is she a wonderful friend? Is she something more than potentially sexy? We don't get to know it.

And can we please talk about the fact that he apparently had a crush on her for a few years? Why are we not talking about how self-conscious and Plain Joe he is for not talking either? Don't frigging throw me the 'he already liked her and knew her for years, he’s such a Nice Guy' card when he's only prepared to talk about it now she's had a makeover because that kinds paints him as a shallow asshole, not a nice guy.

(Cristen) 'Why didn't you tell me?'
(Tye) 'Why didn't you tell me?' Because I can never be considered the Plain Joe here.

Also, if he had a crush on her before, that included her former self with her former style. Which brings me to the beginning. Is a makeover really necessary, folks? How about teaching people to express themselves in a direct way with no misunderstandings, and I'm talking about both of them? Less imposed flirting and stupid gender roles and more communication, please. The sad thing is, we are not supposed to think 'great communication flaws from both of them'. No, we're supposed to think 'See, it all worked out because Cristen gained confidence by conforming to societal gender roles and had a makeover'. That was what made her tell him. The fact that he stayed silent too, we don't care about that.

So this last paragraph isn't in any way intended to glorify Tye for appreciating the 'true Cristen' in her former self. Also, he's clearly very satisfied with her makeover, and she also keeps on maintaining the stereotypically feminine and attractive look after they start dating.

After this oh-so-romantic revelation, they start dancing.

Happy gender roles for everyone!

"This is so romantic I feel like I'm in a movie"  That strategy I was talking about before, make everything glamorous and interesting and alluring and people will swallow all your gender roles willingly.

Tye can only say: "I'm ecstatic to be here. I can't believe the way you look!"
That’s all he’s processed. All the guys are plain idiotic dumbos in this show. But he had a crush on her before, remember that. Only he chose not to mention it until she went through a whole makeover. That's a coincidence!

'I'm so glad it was you'  But he was open and happy to try it with the random girl anyway!

And of course, Louise has to have her final say: "That's another plain Jane converted. Another wallflower has blossomed and found romance. I'm so happy. My work here is done."
Yuck.

And notice that he isn't called a wallflower or shy because he didn't tell her and that he hasn't had to change anything about himself.

Three  months later. Oh look, she's still allowed to play the guitar and be a woman! But of course, she has to dress feminine and sexy and wear heels while she’s doing it or she will be mistaken for a man again.

But, wait for it, this is what the guitar is for now:
She, singing - "I like thinking of cool stuff to make (you)".
He, singing: "I like eating cookies that you bake" 
Ughghjhdkghjhkjghfkj


She, singing: "I like diamonds even when they're fake" Because a relationship that doesn't end in marriage is worthless!

Oh my gods, oh my gods, *fangirling* such a balanced relationship with so few gender roles, all the feels, oh my gods, it’s so cute and romantic I can’t even!

*EPIC FACEPALM*

Feminist ramblings: High heels, make-up and 'choice feminism'

This post has its origin in my criticism-reviews of the Plain Jane episodes, but this particular discussion turned out too long, so I decided to move it to a new post. So here I am to ramble a bit about heels, make-up and the so-called 'choice feminism'.

I have many problems about the inherent sexism of high heels (I did quite a lengthy (and depressing) study about high heels in history a few years ago, I might be uploading the Power Point in the near future). Their constraints on mobility and ill health effects should be reason enough to make quite a few people want to steer away from them. It's also part of the compulsory female uniform in many jobs, and anything that's being forced into me because of my sex is enough to make me wary about said item. And then there's also the fact that a high number of women wear them because they've been told it makes them look and move in a sexier, more attractive manner - and, although some claim that they do it for themselves, because they want to feel 'attractive' for themselves, or because they feel 'more confident' - high heels are nearly always related to and have their origin in the necessity of being attractive for men - while being as mobility-restrained as possible, which I guess also comes in handy. Personally, I'm not a fan at all.

So appealing

Other things such as make-up come from a similar background, and yet many women, myself included, often wear it thinking we actually do it mainly for ourselves, so these issues are undoubtedly more than a bit problematic when it comes to discussing if they're 'feminist' 'choices' or not - Especially when it comes to believing that any choice is 'feminist' so long as it's a woman making said choice.

See Source for the rest. An everyday feminism comic by Ronnie Ritchie.

 In my opinion,  the main problem of the so-called 'choice feminism' involves not realizing that all choices are rooted in something, in this case, patriarchal upbringing, and that women are perfectly able, disregardless of their sex, to make choices that are either simply 'non-feminist', or just plain 'anti-feminist'. Feminism is NOT simply 'about choice'. This doesn't only refer to heels and make-up, but also to other even more controversial issues, such as women who 'choose' to wear female-only religious headcoverings, or women who 'choose' to be an escort/stripper, for example. According to 'choice feminism', in any of these cases people shouldn't be able to point out the inherent misoginy of some of these choices (be that misogyny conscious or not) because they're automatically accepted and 'tolerated' because it's a woman who's making the choice, and that's enough to make said choice a political statement. I personally disagree with such a thought. Like I said, not only are all choices rooted in some sort of mindset - But also, women as well as men can make choices, out of their own free will, which either ignore feminist concepts or plain promote or help perpetuate patriarchal values - in a conscious way or not.

 About the 'choice' aspect, yes, there's a difference between being forced or feeling like we have to wear make-up or heels everyday (this can be extrapolated to other issues) because we owe a certain kind of attractiveness to the world and to men, and wearing them only when we feel like it, because we feel like it that day, and in a more self-oriented than men-oriented manner. But choices don't come from a void, we grow in a patriarchal-based, stereotype-ridden atmosphere, and if many women choose to wear shoes that are usually painful and difficult to walk in, or to try to cover all their natural pores every day before going out, we should maybe think why so many women can't feel as equally attractive or confident in shoes that are healthier and comfier, or why they can't feel as confident if they don't wear at least some subtle make-up to cover their skin every time they go out.

  That's why I can view these as 'choices', but not as 'feminist choices'. Wearing make-up is not particularly 'anti-feminist' at the best of times, as long as you don't go preaching about the utter necessity of wearing it to look good and be desirable to men, but nor is it a 'feminist statement' in most contexts, because it really doesn't do much for the emancipation of women, apart from the potential act of self-expression and rebellion that comes with applying gold eyeshadow or red lipstick and saying 'I'm doing this for myself, not you'. Also, men are not told to wear make-up or high heels to be attractive, so those choices are pretty much gender-based double standards, another reason why we shouldn't call them 'feminist'. Some of these choices shouldn't necessarily affect other people, unless we force them to do the same thing because it's what's expected of us as women, But they are choices that are rooted in a patriarchal society which views women as decoration, never 'good enough' unless they are adorned and flawless, and we should always bear that in mind. 

See Source for the rest. An everyday feminism comic by Ronnie Ritchie.

 That being said, I do consider make-up to be less harmful than heels. As long as make-up is a 'choice' that can be solely artistic, or a 'fun' form of self-love or self-expression that we don't force on others, and that we don't do as a necessity because we feel 'too ugly' and with human flaws without it (there is always the unhealthy notion, however, that make-up also exists to cover up all the human imperfections that women shouldn't be having. More on that later). Heels, however, remain painful, potentially very unhealthy for our bodies, and mobility-contraining. 'Choice' or not (which does not imply 'feminist'), I personally can't see a person wearing such a torture device as a form of 'self-love' or 'confidence'. Plus I think that heels are still potentially very harmful to women's status in society, a very powerful tool in male fantasies in the role of sexualizing and constraining women's bodies. How many women are being shown in 'artwork' and the media wearing high heels even though the context hardly calls for such shoewear? High-heeled warrior-women or female superheroes, anyone? Sure, most of these women are also shown with flawless skin, but at least that won't make them die in the first five seconds of a potential battle!

So at the moment I'm much more optimistic about make-up becoming more of a 'freer choice' for some people than heels, to be honest. At least you can walk freely and without pain while wearing lipstick and mascara. Personally, I enjoy make-up as artistic fun, and try to make it self-love oriented, not so much pore-concealing and flawless skin oriented. I don't feel like needing or having to wear make-up everyday, or the same amount (eyeliner vs naked eyes, for example), which I think is a very important point, not being pressured into thinking you need it because you're a woman.  Because if someone feels like she can't feel confident or comfortable without it, then we should seriously consider if that person is doing it 'for herself', or solely pressured by society to be considered as an acceptable woman.

Also, makeover shows such as Plain Jane and the like (like I said, this rambling has its origin in the criticism of a Plain Jane episode) are utterly simplistic in the sense that they go from 'girl with no make-up who feels insecure and is unfeminine' to 'girl with make-up who feels confident, sexy, and gets the man'. Make-up should not be a thing that you must like and put on every single day just because you're a woman, it should  be a choice (and I'm not talking feminism here, I'm simply talking about choice, if you wear make-up without liking it, to please someone else or because society says you're 'unattractive' without it, then I think you're not in a very healthy situation). Something that you use if you enjoy experimenting with your face in that way (and not necessarily all the time, there are people who like make-up, but who don't feel like they have to wear it all the time). Not something that you must apply on your face all the time in order to look good and attract men while you're at it. 

So apart from the fact that it shouldn't be a compulsory thing that I should do because I was born a woman, let us stop using simplistic clichés where you're insecure and feel bad and ugly if you don't wear make-up, but turn into a confident woman after caking foundation, mascara and lipstick on. I can record hair tutorials with 0% make-up on, upload them on YouTube for everyone to see, and then decide to put on powder foundation, eye make-up and lisptick to go for lunch with my mum. No simplistic 'choose this or that' sexist makeover needed, and no man involved in my motivations, thank you very much. Let's stop being so damn dualistic and simplistic about everything, and making women feel like they have to do certain things in certain contexts all the damn time!

No simplistic 'choose this or that' makeover needed. I enjoy make-up, but I also feel good about my no make-up face!

And before I finish for today, there's one more thing I'd like to comment about the topic of make-up and 'beauty', and particularly about the new trend of 'natural beauty'. Lately, there has been an increasing amount of activism against the utter pressure that women face about having to wear make-up to appear 'flawless' and 'beautiful', and that's great. Gendered obligations are not OK. However, I've been noticing more and more people (women and men) who tackle this issue by commenting in videos and posts that 'she is (as/more) beautiful without make-up' or the bit worrying 'She is still beautiful (without make-up/at her age/at her weight)'. While these people's intentions generally seem to be good and with the aim to empower women into not having to wear make-up to feel good (or into accepting their age or weight), I think it's worrying that telling a woman that she's 'beautiful' is still considered as the utmost form of praise. It is as if, make-up or no make-up, we're still being evaluated first and foremost because of our appearance. Complimenting a person about their appearance in a respectful, non-creepy way is generally an OK thing to do, and it feels generally good to receive such compliments, but haven't we thought about the fact that a great number of people seem to tackle the issue of 'women should not be forced to wear make-up' by saying simply that 'they're still beautiful without make-up'?

Plus this is really a no-win situation for many women. They can be told anything from 'You should wear more make-up, you look ill', to 'You wear too much make-up, you'd be prettier without it', People, and men, still seem to think that all this is exclusively intended for them, for them to evaluate.

 Some people, men and women alike, are actually turning this 'anti compulsory make-up' activism into a 'compulsory non-make-up' one, claiming that 'women are more beautiful without make-up' and that 'women shouldn't wear make-up'. This trend of 'natural beauty' is becoming steadily more aggressive, or so it seems to me, belittling women for wearing make-up, calling them empty-headed, vain and stupid (no sexist stereotypes there, no, not at all), and sometimes claiming in a rather aggressive way that 'no make-up' makes you somehow 'more feminist', same as not dyeing your hair and not shaving instantly makes you 'more feminist' (once again, I wouldn't claim so easily that a woman is more or less of a feminist because she decides whether to wear or not to wear make-up, dye her hair or shave).
Some of the men who have joined the ranks of the 'natural beauty' trend (notice we're always talking about 'beauty' here), choose a more demanding and egotistical way of telling women that they're 'more beautiful without make-up' (because they're here to decide how we should look, after all), also claiming that women 'lie' to them when they wear make-up, so they shouldn't, because hey, they're making an investment here and how are they to know that women happen to have human pores underneath their foundation and flesh-coloured eyelids (intense sarcasm)! -, and also because I guess that they think that all women put on make-up to please them, so if they don't like make-up, then what reason should women have to wear it? Women are here to decorate the male world, people!

  Some women reply to this saying 'I wear make-up for me, not you' (examples here, here, here, here, here, here , here and here), and in this light I can say I do relate to this, and that I can see the potentially feminist implication of wearing make-up because you like it in a purely aesthetically way or as a rebellious form of self-love, as opposed to wearing it, or not wearing any, to please someone else. Of course, the same would apply to women deciding not to wear make-up as a political statement: 'I do not have to wear make-up as the compulsory requirement to try to appear 'flawless' for anyone and I have no need for make-up to feel confident about myself.' Or simply 'I don't like make-up, so I don't wear it' (examples here, here, here, here, here and here).  

 

People (especially women) who like and choose to wear make-up are always influenced to a greater or lesser extent by gender roles and societal rules. But even so, it's high time people (especially men) realized that many women actually do wear it because they feel good about themselves, not to please others or to be desirable.

The key of the matter here is, I think, not turning anything into a compulsory thing, something that is done solely to please others, or, indeed, a war between two sides. Because both of these postures are not contradictory at all. You can enjoy experimenting with make-up without feeling like you have to wear it every day, or without feeling 'unattractive' without it!

I switch between no make-up (glasses or not), 'natural' make-up and more elaborate or colourful make-up. It should be about what you like and how you feel good, with no disempowering motivations. 

• So, can make-up be seen as a feminist statement in certain situations? I think it can, same as no-make-up as a political statement, mainly as a response to men who demand that women either wear or not wear make-up, and who think that our decision to either wear or not wear it is motivated only by how they view us and how desirable we look to them. I resent men either telling me wear or not to wear make-up. It's a choice that doesn't come from the void, it has gendered roots and implications, but it's still a choice that I'm able to make without taking men directly into account.   And yes, gendered roots aside, it can be an artistic, self-expression area as well. 

• And Is it always a feminist statement or choice? No. In many cases I don't think it should even be called 'feminist', because it doesn't do that much for the equality of the sexes, which is what feminism is really about. Both feminists and anti-feminists can enjoy wearing make-up. And in any case, even though some women can wear it solely for their own aesthetic reasons, it's still a choice rooted in a patriarcal environment, and a gendered choice as well.  That doesn't make the choice 'anti-feminist', but it's something that should be born in mind. 

Btw, now I'm rereading this, the rambling nature of this post may give the idea that it seems that what I'm trying to say is that 'make-up is better than heels'. That was not my original intention, but speaking about that matter, I personally am not a fan of heels and do think they are potentially more harmful that other gendered 'beauty' aspects such as make-up, yes. Make-up can also be potentially very harmful, and it is in many ways, of course. The 'make-up empowerment' activists may not take this into account, but in our current society make-up is an important part of the women-focused, normative, gendered pressure to look beautiful every day. That's not what I would call ultimate empowerment, and that's why I generally try not to mix the terms 'feminism' and 'make-up'. 

 But I simply cannot see the pros of heels, not even in the cases where it's shown as a 'political statement' against men who are 'intimidated by them' (intimidated by the woman's height, maybe, but by what else? Intimidated by her inability to run or move well? By her pain?). Heels and make-up may be both gendered and they oppress women when being normative, and they share common patriarchal roots. But feminine heels, which are always thinner and higher than male heels, seem to have the eternal and gendered aim to make women 'sexier' while constraining their mobility and endangering ther health (and they're related to extremely mysoginistic practices such as foot binding). While make-up has been and can be a non-gendered beauty aspect depending on the period and culture (18th Century noblemen wore make-up routinely, for example, and so do some current cultures, men and non-binary/queergender people nowadays).

However, one word of caution about the 'more non-gendered nature of make-up'. Because one thing is to praise the self-expression possibilities, fun and artistic side of eye and lip make-up looks, which have been non-gendered in some cultures and periods - But other very different, and far more serious, thing is to take into account the way women are pressured into making their skin completely flawless with make-up: foundation, powder, concealer, blush, highlighter, all that myriad of products designed to make people think that women should have no pores, pimples, scars, discoloration, redness, or any other imperfections. Men, considered human beings with all their human rights in this society, are allowed such imperfections to a greater extent than women. But women are not seen as persons, but rather as pretty objects of decoration which should look flawless and inhumanly perfect every single day - for the men. And the gods forbid a woman has human pores or human pimples on her skin! That is a source of tremendous pressure and lack of self-esteem in so many women. The non-gendered side of make-up through the ages has been more related to eye make-up, blush, lipstick and the like - The more artistic, decorative areas, the ones which may actually have a say when it comes to self-expression, self-love, artistic aims (men did wear and do wear foundation and powder in certain times and contexts, though). But it is the women who have been most forced throughout history to hide their natural human skin in order to make it look 'flawless' - often endangering their health with poisonous 'beauty products' such as lead-based foundations. And that isn't about self-expression, or self-love, or art. It's a very sexist double standard.

These issues may seem simple, but I think they're way more complex and less simplistic than many people - 'Choice feminism' included - think. After centuries of a male-dominated mindset with a lot of gender roles, it's hard to say that something is 100% gender role free or that we truly make a choice solely for ourselves, without being influenced by something else. The key in the matter is, I think, to be aware of that (especially because many of these choices can unconsciously promote a lot of double standards, misoginy and gender roles, and we should bear that in mind). And as for me, I'd try to choose the things that'd make me as happy as possible without harming others and, if possible, without relying in a major way on what society and any source of mindset-ridden authority may say I should be doing because of my gender.