wendya@apollo.UUCP (08/23/84)
We are all familiar with this common form of stereotype (racial, sexual,
whatever): "If you are an XXXX, then you must be YYYY," (e.g., sexy blonde
woman/dumb, Mexican/lazy, Jew/greedy, etc.). But the relevant form here,
I think, is the seldom-considered converse: "If you are an XXXX, then you
can't possibly be YYYY." How does this relate to the makeup/no makeup
controversy?
There seem to be an awful lot of self-righteous, pseudo-intellectual
elitists (and I'm not referring to anyone specifically on the net - I've
seen refreshingly little of that here, thank goodness!) who are every
bit as intent on prosyletizing their own view of the universe as the most rabid
religious fanatic. And their view invariably involves an arcane (indeed, the
more arcane the better) pigeonholing scheme into which everyone must fit,
or else! They consider themselves (and their "small circles of elite friends")
as the guardians and judges of moral, ethical, and intellectual purity, and
spend most of their time fuming about the supposed transgressions of their
inferiors. Hence, the more irrational objections to makeup: "If she wears
makeup, she must be morally/intellectually inferior BY DEFINITION - after all,
the time she spends on the stuff should be spent on "intellectual pursuits"
sanctioned by me...(etc., etc., etc.)."
The bottom line is this; it's based on common sense and simple respect for the
individual liberties of others - makeup, or no makeup, or anything of the sort,
is strictly a personal choice - it's properly and entirely at the discretion
of the individual. As the old song says, "'Taint nobody's business but my own!"
It is rude and unkind to try to make anyone feel inferior or less worthy or
less "intellectually pure" because they have made a particular choice in this
area.
A woman or man who chooses to wear/not wear makeup (or earrings, or long
dresses, or jodhpurs, or whatever), is certainly capable of determining the
effect of those actions within the context of his own life, habits, friends,
lovers, job, etc. And that's quite sufficient. No one needs me, and I need no
one, to make that kind of decision or to offer unsolicited, cheap advice.
In other words, it's a non-issue, and I do feel that much of the discussion
of the subject I've seen on the net is either pure opinion (which is fine, as
long as it's identified as such), defensiveness, or simply verbal gymnastics.
This kind of reasoning can also be fruitfully applied to a great many
human interractions when the best policy is "shut up and hands off"
(unless asked by the person in question). How many people have heard (or
inferred) such drivel as:
"You're an artist - you can't possibly be interested in COMPUTERS!"
"You're a girl - you don't want to play baseball!"
"She wears jewelry and fancy clothes - she can't possibly be competent."
"You're a woman - you can't cut it in the business world."
"My son is a 'real man' - he can't be a ballet dancer."
"You like rock music - you must be an idiotic cretin."
"You like classical music - you must be cultured and educated."
"He's Mexican - he'll never work an eight-hour day."
"He's Japanese - he'll work twelve-hour days."
"You don't have a college degree - you can't do this job."
"You wear makeup - you must be a shallow 'plastic woman.'"
Just TUNE IT OUT! Those of you who wear makeup, carry on! Don't EVER feel
the need to justify your choice to anyone but yourself. If someone rejects
you on such a basis, they're not worth the effort. There ARE sensible and
sensitive people out there.
Variety, surprise, and contradiction make life, and people, interesting. I
really wish I could live to see the end of this mass illusion that we are
responsible for categorizing and grading everyone and everything around us.
Voltaire had it right: "Tend your own garden."
Thank you...
W. Christensen