I was catching up on Indexed today (it’s a great blog) and found this pertinent. It’s definitely relevant to our class – for example, in light of Friday’s discussion, it’s interesting that this does equate beauty with goodness, to a degree – being good makes you beautiful, so beautiful is something you want to be. And it fits in well with Peiss and the idea that goodness will be reflected in physical beauty, but “unnatural” beauty has a perplexing relationship to goodness (we’ve talked about this extensively, but see 16-17). But this is cool because it’s graphs!
There’s also a funnier, if less relevant to our class, graph on beauty below from her book:
Again, from Friday’s class, our conversation on the differences between “fixing” and “enhancing” made me think back to these series of YouTube videos I came across a while ago. These videos are part of a “tag” called “My Perfect Imperfections.” The tag is simple: List three things you don’t like about yourself and list three things you do like about yourself.
After watching several of these videos, it didn’t come as too much of a shock to me that the majority of people listed their physical characteristics. But, it was a pleasant surprise to see the video of a very young girl (below) who listed things such as her tongue not liking veggies, being afraid of the dark, or appreciating being a human on Earth, as some of the things she disliked and liked about herself. It was also pleasant for me to hear the teen (below) give a brief introduction mentioning that everyone has flaws, but we are who we are and to appreciate that.
I was compelled to feel as though these YouTubers’ criticisms on their bodies were alluded to some desire for them to “fix” these issues, but in the end, these videos leave the viewer (myself) to believe that what they must do is just live with what they have and do what they can to “enhance” their other areas–the things they like about themselves.
If you’re curious to see how this works, here are five I selected (out of about 46,200 results) to show some variety in age, people, etc:
A YouTube beauty guru and the originator of the tag:
Another YT beauty guru:
A young girl:
A teen:
A college student:
So, I’m thinking… for fun and for those who are up for it, I tag Beauty & Race! Would anyone like to explain a few of their “Perfect Imperfections” in the comments below?
Don’t feel compelled to do this, if this is something you don’t like. As always, comments and criticisms on this tag and these videos are welcome!
Towards the end of class on Friday, we touched on the idea of beauty represented through photography and advertisements, but most importantly, the techniques of using photoshopping and airbrushing to better these photos and ads. This reminded me of a popular make-up ad from not too long ago…
In the spring of 2011, famous beauty blog Temptalia featured the popular make-up brand Make Up For Ever’s (MUFE) launch of their new foundation, the High Definition (HD) Invisible Coverage Foundation. Accompanying this launch was their advertisement claiming to be thefirst unretouched, non-airbrushed ad in the beauty industry. I remember this product being the craze when it came out that spring. I walked into a Sephora with my older sister, and representatives from MUFE were there testing the foundation on customers and claiming that this was the new top-selling foundation on the high-end market at Sephora. (Apparently, they are also the “exclusive beauty retailer for this product.”)
Right now, their HD line is called “HD Unretouched,” which can be found on the MUFE website featuring the same photo of the model on the left as well as a re-emphasis on the “*Not Retouched” next to her photo. This model’s ad is not the only one MUFE released for their product. The brand also created ads including women of color, as seen below.
The most intriguing part of these ads are their taglines: “You’re looking at the first unretouched make up ad,” and, “Real life is unretouched, just like this ad.”
By applying their foundation on women of color, they show that their brand is versatile in shade range, but the main objective is not targeted towards having that “natural” or perfect look. Rather, it elicits this sense that all women can achieve that retouched look.
It provokes the idea that you don’t need airbrushing or photoshopping to look perfect, but you need this foundation. You still need make-up.
…So, what is “real life”? Should we look “retouched”?
Dirt under his nails? Whatever, that’s manly and rugged. Clean nails that are well-trimmed? He’s got nice nails for a dude. Painted nails? Whoa, wait, what??
In a class full of women, I think we forget to mention how men get involved in beauty, and how gendered beauty shapes what guys can and cannot do. Reading Lauren’s post about the press-on nails and the “revolution” ad campaign for the product, I was reminded of another nail product that I had seen somewhere in the past.
Alpha Nail is a nail polish for men, though the term “nail polish” rarely occurs. Instead, Alpha Nail is described as “war paint” that is “for strength, for style, for swagger, for protection, or to cover up your fugly toenails.” It is “uber-masculine” with a color selection ranging from the hilarious (“Cocaine” and “Gasoline”) to the majestic (“Celtic Silver” and “Deep Ocean”). It also comes in a totally inconspicuous applicator that looks like some art student’s fancy $20 marker. The web site also sells its own nail polish remover wipes (aceton-free, for those strong nails!) because “[n]o self respecting [sic] man should ever have to buy cotton balls.” Mixed martial arts fighters like Nick “The Ghost” Gonzalez and Roger Huerta endorsing Alpha Nail really put the bow on top of this hyper-manly version of the traditional female manicure.
This brings me back to Kathy Peiss, who explains that “men interested in beautifying had to defend themselves against insinuations of frivolity, weakness, and homosexuality” (159). That statement was applied to men in the 1930s, but that idea persists—and maybe it’s even become more extreme since then. Alpha Nail hits those three targets. (1) Frivolity is countered by the easy pen application that allows guys to “[j]ust click, paint, put the cap on, and its ready to go for another round.” (2) The product description is riddled with words like “strength,” “durable,” “protection,” and “hard.” (3) Guys don’t have to deal with “daintly little brushes,” “girly nail polish containers,” and “fluffy sack[s] of cotton balls.” The visual images of MMA fighters, manual workers, and athletes is also a marketing tactic that bears resemblance to the way that some cosmetics companies tried to sell their products to men in “health clubs, gyms, and sporting goods stores—in a misplaced attempt to avoid a ‘gay image’”(264).
If you use nail polish by O.P.I. and you aren’t a chick, society says you might be a stylish and sassy gay man.
On one hand, I applaud men who want to beat the stigma surrounding men and nail polish. More power to ya. On the other, isn’t this just another iteration of a gendered dichotomy? Sure, go ahead and appropriate nail polish and create your own system of meanings. That’s fine with me. But I cannot get over how antagonistic the language is toward women and how aggressively hetero-normative it is. Are those laden insecurities that I sense?
Why, yes.
Weirdly, though, and against all my expectations, there is little allusion to sexuality. There is one blurry picture of a smitten and possibly unclothed woman (you only see her from the shoulders up). In a how-to video with Nick “The Ghost” Gonzalez, there are some pin-up posters in the background of a how-to video.
At the end of the video, he claims that what’s easier than applying the nail polish is getting the chicks afterward (cue a scantily clad lady in heals and one-piece bathing suit) who can later do your nails herself. That’s about it. But you have to click around to see any of that. Compared to other ads for men’s products that blatantly paste everywhere desperate and enamored women (refer to Axe or any dandruff shampoo), this is kind of a breath of fresh air. WAIT–after further investigation, I found other campaign images that were not on the web site.
I presume this used to be on their website, so I wonder what influenced the shift away from images of sex.
What do you think about Alpha Nail? Is this a step forward for guys’ self-expression or a step back for vanity? How do we advertise beauty products to men that isn’t misogynistic or hyper-masculine?
References
Peiss, Kathy. Hope in a Jar The Making of America’s Beauty Culture (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998).
A couple weeks ago as our spring term classes began, I received a very interesting package in the mail. It had a radical feminist textbook on women’s health issues, interesting in its own right to be sure – but it also had an unsolicited sample pack of peel-and-stick nails? I turned the bag over and was greeted by “JOIN THE REVOLUTION” written in bold letters across a hot pink background.
The author is slightly unimpressed.
What’s more, the hand holding the nail polish bottle in the advertisement picture is clearly reminiscent of the classic feminist/revolutionary icon of a fist (pictured below).
Also, when I went to their website to investigate further, I was able to watch this very interesting video ad that is part of their “join the revolution” campaign. I highly recommend watching it unless you’re the type of person where too much pink will make you nauseated.
What does this all mean? Something is clearly bothering me about the juxtaposition of this tagline with the product that is actually being sold. It reminds me of the last few chapters we read from Peiss’s Hope in a Jar – once upon a time, when the beauty industry was still primarily local businesses run by women entrepreneurs, as in the late 1800s/early 1900s in America, this sort of product may actually have been revolutionary. But after the industry was taken over by white men and beauty culture became increasingly mass-marketed to women starting after World War I, as Peiss writes:
“ironically, a period that began with cosmetics signaling women’s freedom and individuality ended in binding feminine identity to manufactured beauty, self-portrayal to acts of consumption.”[1]
Are peel-n-stick nails so revolutionary when the only people saying so are large corporations trying to get your money? I actually just had a reading for my other class (the one my women’s health textbook was for!) yesterday about the power of advertising, which talked about how advertisers often co-opt the language of rebellion or dissent to sell things that are most definitely promoting dominant norms of beauty and/or other cultural values.[2] Once you start looking for it, it’s so true.
I believe that is what’s happening here. I have nothing against nail polish, but I am suspicious of how this one is being advertised. What’s more, the revolution that the ad implies is not even wearing nail polish – it’s being able to quickly put on this ‘fake’ nail polish, as it were, in seconds and have it look perfect. This ties into our class discussions about ‘natural’ vs. ‘artificial’ beauty. What is the significance of using artificial means to accomplish a ‘natural artificial’ look? (i.e., colorful nails are generally not seen as natural, but I think that most people when seeing them would assume they had ‘naturally’ been painted on as opposed to premade and stuck on.)
There’s certainly a lot to be unpacked in just this one free sample I received. (Also, why did they put it in my textbook package? Did they know I was a woman somehow and assume I would want this free sample? Did they put it in because I had ordered a women’s health textbook? And more.) Do you have thoughts to add?
Footnotes:
1. Kathy Peiss, Hope in a Jar (1998), page 135.
2. Jean Kilbourne, Deadly Persuasion: Why Women and Girls Must Fight the Addictive Power of Advertising (1999).
Have you ever wondered if your perception of yourself may differ from how others perceive you? Personally, I have always wondered whether what I see in the mirror differs from what the world sees. I never really thought that there would be a big difference but after watching this video I realized that like the women in the video, I do often times focus and emphasize my flaws. It’s interesting to see how we (or most women) are so worried about our flaws and appearance when in reality, most people wouldn’t even notice them or even care about them. So if these perceptions are so different, which one do we believe? I may think that my lips are too small and therefore a flaw whereas others may think it’s just fine. Which one is truly how I appear?
Although I am not sure about the authenticity about this ad, this campaign definitely highlights the insecurities and low self-esteem that most women endure and the idea that we as individuals are our own worst critics. It attempts to call attention to the fact that women’s perceptions of their own beauty have been skewed and manipulated by years of media’s highly idealized portrayals of beauty.
After coming across this video, I did some research about the Dove Beauty Campaign. In 2004, Dove launched the Campaign for Real Beauty. Since their studies found that approximately 4% of women around the world would describe themselves as beautiful they set out to widen the definition of beauty. First they began with an ad in 2004, which featured women whose appearances differed from the stereotypical norms of beauty. Next in 2005, they advertised six women with curvy bodies in an attempt to reject the norm that only thin is beautiful. Although I admire Dove’s campaign and the messages they are promoting, I find these advertisements as slightly hypocritical and patronizing. Dove and Axe are both owned by Uniliver, and have you seen those Axe campaigns? Check out this Axe commercial that aired during the same time as other Dove Real Beauty ads:
How can a company promote these contrasting messages?
On one hand you have a compassionate and powerful message about women underestimating their appearance while on the other you have a campaign promising men seductive women by simply wearing cologne. While Dove seems to empower women and advocate a “natural” beauty, Axe contrastingly labels women as easily being turned on by axe. I’m sorry but I personally would not start popping my booty (excuse my language) or start dancing seductively in a grocery store after smelling axe. It’s just so farfetched and unrealistic. It’s amazing to see how advertising can so easily manipulate peoples’ minds. Why would you advocate women to be more confident when you also advocate women as being so easily attracted to men? Don’t get me wrong, I do admire Dove’s campaign but it’s degrading media like the Axe commercial that makes it so difficult for women to escape this never ending anxiety to believe they are beautiful.
Kathy Peiss discusses many of the health hazards of cosmetics, especially early patent cosmetics of the 19th century. Americans distrusted cosmetics not only because they allowed women to disguise their true selves, but also for very practical health related reasons. Peiss notes that, “mercury, lead, and arsenic appeared in formulas of a number of fashionable beauty preparations”.¹ We are fortunate to live in a time where these hazardous chemicals have been eliminated from makeup products.
But wait! A 2007 study by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics showed tested popular 33 brands of lipstick and found 61% were contaminated with lead. A follow-up study by the FDA found even higher levels of lead. Check it out:
The scariest thing to me is that “lead is a contaminant not listed on lipstick ingredient labels”, so even an educated consumer who thoroughly checks her labels is not fully informed.
Beauty treatments can be harmful not only to the people using the products but to cosmetologists, hair stylists, and others who are exposed to toxic chemicals at work.
See this article for information about formaldehyde in hair straighteners:
Nail polish is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to toxicity. About 40% of nail technicians are Vietnamese immigrants, many of whom do not speak English well or are not familiar enough with American institutions to advocate for their own safety.²
Although I agree with Linda Scott that it is problematic to idealize “natural” beauty when it is defined as “the absence of artifice” ³, what if the effects of that artifice are more than social and psychological? I want women to be empowered, not poisoned by their cosmetics! All natural, paraben free and phthalate free beauty products do exist, but they tend to fall in a much higher price range, and are therefore not accessible to most women. And in a world where everything seems to cause cancer, some of us have to pick and choose our battles. But demanding safe cosmetics, and defending our right to feel healthy and beautiful, seems to me like a worthy cause.
Note: This post is inspired by my reading for Politics of Women’s Health, taught by Meera Sehgal.
References:
1. Kathy Peiss, Hope in a Jar: The Making of America’s Beauty Culture (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), 21.
2. Virginia Sole-Smith, “The High Price of Beauty,” in Women’s Health: Readings on Social, Economic, and Political Issues, ed. Nancy Worcester and Mariamne H. Whatley (Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 2009), 432.
3. Linda M. Scott, Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 11.
How do we define beauty? In my opinion, beauty can hardly be defined using only several quantified phrases. However, there has been some kind of quantified standard of beauty using science and technology going on currently. The above images was created by combining different portraits of women from their countries, namely these are “average faces” from various countries.
I made a mistake in class by saying that they are the “perfect faces”, I guess one of the reasons that I remembered the term wrongly was because all these faces seemed very physically appealing, and they all look very beautifully to me. That’s probably why I thought they were “perfect”. It is very interesting to note that many commenters find these average faces very attractive like I did.
One more thing that I want to bring up here is do we see beauty a categorical term or a continuous spectrum? This question came up to my mind while I was reading Nguyen’s article when she compared beauty and ugliness. By saying a categorical term, I mean that there are only two categories for beauty; one is either beautiful or ugly. While for continuous spectrum, one can be described as less beautiful, more beautiful and very beautiful, etc.
As per Kathy Davis’ article, “Remaking the She-Devil: A Critical Look at Feminist Approaches to Beauty”, this video shows the lengths some women will go to attain the body they want, in this case, one like a Barbie doll. What would Davis say about her transformation? Would she agree that Valeria is “taking her life into her own hands” by getting multiple cosmetic surgeries or has the ‘Human Barbie’ taken it too far?
In this video slam poet Makkai tells the story of her past personal experience with one meaning of “pretty,” and then imagines its place (or replacement) in her future. I was reminded of it by the reading for tomorrow’s class about cosmetic surgery.
The poet’s is definitely a different take from Kathy Davis’s in “Remaking the She-Devil”– one which is perhaps more in agreement with the “‘cultural dope’ approach” Davis problematizes.
What is the message Makkai’s words to her daughter, at the end of her performance, seek to encourage? Discourage?
Beauty and Race: AMST 225 
