Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Hope in a Jar: Introduction and Chapter One

'Hope in a Jar: The Making of America's Beauty Culture' arrived last week, along with my other 2 textbooks which I'm super excited to read.

In the introduction, Kathy Peiss tells the store of the 1930's lipstick marketing campaign for 'Hussy' and 'Lady' colors, and how for the first time women could choose to label themselves by the cosmetics they purchased. I was amazed to read that 'Hussy' lipstick sales outnumbered 'Lady' immensely, and I was also amused that women wanted to embrace their inner 'hussy', when for thousands of years men had been labeling painted women as such.
It's a bit off topic, but I began to contemplate the marketing industries of today that pretty much do the same thing. Women will buy anything that says 'sexy' or 'slutty', completely embracing the idea of being a sexual object. Halloween is coming up, and all the costumes for women my age are basically stripper outfits. Was 'Hussy' lipstick marketing the beginning of encouraging us to ratify our inner strumpet?

I appreciated the next point addressed, because it tackled the misconception that the cosmetic industry and beauty culture was somehow pushed by men, or men forcing it on women. Apparently some feminists believe this to be true because manipulating women's insecurities to sell makeup products would only be a diabolical plan concocted by a man. She quotes Naomi Wolf from The Beauty Myth;

"And the act of beautifying, though it seems enticing and freely chosen, is really compulsory work, so narcissistic, time-consuming, and absorbing as to limit women's achievements."

Bwa ha ha. Absolutely sinister. But the chapter continues on to explain that cosmetics have actually belonged to women throughout history. Even prior to the middle ages, women were responsible to be thoroughly versed in gardening, herbology, medicinal recipes, and concoctions for skin treatments. Either through oral tradition or collected into guide books, women handed down the information to their daughters and it continued on for generations.

Women often compiled their own recipe books and passed them on to their daughters. Scattered among food recipes and medical formulas were instructions for compounding cosmetics. (Peiss, 13)

However, 'cosmetics' usually would refer to skin wash, cream, or beautifying treatment. 'Paint's began to connote something else entirely. Painting the face represented two kinds of women, the upper class and the lowest of classes.

The wealthy classes of aristocrats were the leaders of fashionable style and the first to afford the cosmetics. In Europe, Louis XIV of France and his entire court sported outlandish powdered wigs, painted faces, and elaborate fashions. In the east, the wealthy Japanese nobles powdered their faces white, and blackened their teeth (a practice called Ohaguro) until 1870. When cosmetics became more readily available, fashions in painting the face trickled down to the lower classes.

One trend that stayed constant in many cultures through the centuries was the virtuous and chaste woman. To paint the face was to be false, and deceit was sinful, leading the woman down the path to moral corruption. A powdered face, painted lips, and rouged cheeks became synonymous with prostitutes. More specifically, it expressed that a woman had vanity and interests that laid in areas other than raising children and wifely duties, which was a woman's sole purpose.

Women who used their wits and beauty to gain advantage in the marriage market, wives more interested in dress than motherhood, and - the conclusive sign of female degradation - women who frequented both the enameler's studio and the abortionist's clinic. (Peiss, 28)

The Puritans wrote against the falsities of paints for it's altering God's creation. English Parliament in 1770 annulled marriages if the wife used cosmetics, heels, or clothing to ensnare the husband. By the 19th century a clear complexion, white skin, and natural beauty was desirable. It also seperated the middle class from the upper and lower classes, who still used paints and fashion accessories to alter their appearance. The decadence of outlandish makeup and fashion of the aristocracy were criticized for their vanity and vices.

Towards the end of the chapter, cosmetics became essential in the distinction of race, specifically separating the whites from the blacks. African Americans used many kinds of hair straighteners and treatments to lighten their skin complexions, meanwhile the whites would use a variety of creams and cosmetics to keep their skin from darkening. Slaves would get brutally beaten if caught mimicking the cosmetic practices of whites (yet how long did it take us to get rid of minstrel shows?), and racist advertising for creams and ointments would show the difference in complexions from the African Americans to the desirable white skin of a lady.

So the questions I have at the end of this post is, where did the desire to become pale come from? Many countries from Ancient Greece, China, and India all have promoted this ideal of the pale skinned woman? Is it simply that pale = aristocracy, and that it was the working classes who had darkened skin? When did this concept change? After all, we seem to promote a sporty tanned look nowadays, because having a tan means you have time to lounge outside in the sun on boats or private beaches.

Lastly, this segment from the introduction got me thinking:
Women reported as early as the 1930's that advertising and social pressures to be attractive lowered their self-esteem. Others, however, boldly applied their lipsticks in public and asserted their right to self-creation through the "makeover" of self-image. (Peiss, 6)

Everyone wants to be valued, whether that be through beauty, intelligence, and wealth, so have women been dealing with self-esteem issues since the dawn of time? Does advertising exacerbate the issue? Or does cosmetics give us the tool to change how we appear, thus making us feel better?

Sources used:

Collia-Suzuki, Gina. "Ohaguro - Beautiful Blackened Smiles." GinaCollia-Suzuki.com. Gina Collia-Suzuki., 2008 - 2011. Web. 18 Oct 2011.

And Sold, Old. "Dress During Louis XIV, Louis XV, Louis XVI 1643-1789." Old and Sold. Old and Sold, 1926. Web. 18 Oct 2011. Hope in a Jar: The Making of America's Beauty Culture. New York: Henry Holt and Company Inc., 1998. Print.

No comments:

Post a Comment