Oversexualized Latinas vs. All Other Latinas

Melissa Lopez  

Blog # 2

October 6, 2016

Bodies in American Culture

Oversexualized Latinas vs. All Other Latinas

The Latina representation among media has given its viewers a broad representation of what most Latinas look like. Among the media, Latinas are represented by oversexualized women. For example, Jennifer Lopez, Sofia Vergara, Salma Hayek, and Adrienne Bailon to name a few. We associate these Latina women through their physical characteristics. The booty, breast, body, and their caramel skin tones are the most common physical attributes that are attached to Latina characteristics. In the reading “Brain, Brow, and Booty” by Molina and Valdivia, they argue that U.S. mainstream culture has hypersexualized and hyper commodified women like Jennifer Lopez, Salma Hayek, and Frida Kahlo. Articles like these help us understand the meaning behind the representations that media attaches to these women. U.S. mainstream media viewers attach these attributes to all Latinas and have one image/idea of what all Latinas should look like.

Jennifer Lopez, Salma Hayek and Adrienne Bailon are all women with oversexualized physical characteristics. They all have bodies that have big booty’s and big breast, not only that but have caramel skin tones. With this examples of these women, I would like to argue that U.S. mainstream ignores all other physical and emotional attributes that other Latinas embody. I argue that U.S. mainstream forgets about the other type of Latinas, those women who embody the physical attributes that are not portrayed in mainstream media. The family-orientated, conservative women are never portrayed in U.S mainstream media. As viewers we often forget about the other Latinas. We forget about the Latinas that are hardworking, stay at home moms, and those who do not embody oversexualized bodies.

For instance, McFarland and Under the Same Moon are two films that I found that have Latina women playing the family-orientated and conservative mother who will sacrifice anything for their children and willing to work to provide for their well-being of their family. In Under the Same Moon, Kate Del Castillo plays the role of the immigrant mother who leaves her family behind in hopes of finding better opportunities in the U.S. for her son and mother back in Mexico. Del Castillo is dark skinned, brown eyes, black hair, and is short in height. She works as a maid and babysitter in an all-white neighborhood. Her cloths cover her breast, and she is not dressed in tight form fitting clothing. On the other hand, we have Diana Maria Riva in McFarland who plays the role of the protective and hard-working mother. With her curly black hair, average weight, and baggy clothes she plays the role of the mother who cooks, cleans, and works. Her main work requires to be bent all day, she is part of the obreros; (crop-picking job). Both Del Castillo and Riva portray the physical and representations that attribute to the other Latinas.

The portrayals that these two women play in the films are left out of the U.S. mainstream media and ignore all other Latinas because U.S mainstream media consistently focuses on Latinas with curvy bodies who tend to be tall, thin with voluminous booty’s and breast. All other Latinas are dismissed and play the role of maid in small parts in films and shows. With roles such as ones that Sofia Vergara, Salma Hayek and Jennifer Lopez, Latinas are constantly bombarded by the media with the image of what they are supposed to look and be life. Therefore, these stereotypes are leaving the other Latinas who do not fit these stereotypes feeling left out and misrepresented. And even though they seemed to be represented in films like McFarland and Under the Same Moon, Latinas are very much misrepresented by mainstream media culture. Shows like Modern Family, in which Sofia Vergara embodies the loud, sexy yet a stay home mom with a luxury home that has a hard time to pronounce words and other have to correct her, but instead of promoting and celebrating the success of the Latinas, media seems to be suppressing them by giving out negative stereotypes of the Latina women. This is something that needs to be changed, the Latina women have to move away from the stereotypical roles in U.S. mainstream media and show their real identity and culture. The Latina women need to embody their own representations without having to focus of what mainstream media culture has to say about their bodies or how they should portray themselves around the world. As the matter of fact, Latina women need to represent their culture and identities so that U.S. mainstream culture does not miss-represent their culture and identities.

As a Latina women attending a college with majority students who are non-colored, we should take pride and joy to be representing our culture and identity. Being Latina is Beautiful and women shouldn’t feel oppressed by the fact that not many Latina women attend college. We need to be strong and show U.S. mainstream media culture that not all Latinas are personas with oversexualized bodies with no brains!

Mascara's meaning: Makeup, the personal, and the political

When you wake up in the morning and go about your routine, the politics of presentation are probably far from your mind, though an awareness that the “getting-ready” process is loaded with decisions that may impact how you’re perceived by others- and yourself.

In Julia Serano’s “Putting the Feminine Back into Feminism,” expression (specifically in areas that get assigned as feminine) is explored, particularly ideas of what motivates individuals to choose particular ways of presenting themselves, how they may be perceived as a result, and what this means politically.

While politics may be in the mind of some while they think about the way they interact with the world, that is not to say it is the sole factor that influences presentation decisions. The use (or lack thereof) of makeup is an avenue through which expression can be explored, because how we choose to decorate – or not – our face is both deeply personal, but highly public, and with public comes the political.

I opt to keep my face bare on a day-to-day basis for reasons related to comfort and function on several levels: mascara makes my eyes water after a few hours. Foundation can be pricey. I’m always checking my teeth to ensure I they haven’t become speckled with lipstick. After a yearish of wearing makeup daily I decided it wasn’t worth the time spent (especially if I’d have to wash it off to run every evening, given the slimy result of a sweat- foundation combination). The yearish I wore makeup came relatively later than the observed societal average (my sample size was mostly my school), and it was motivated by mostly political (yet still practical, read: an affinity for avoiding unnecessary effort). I had for some combination of factors and ideas believed, like many of the feminists described by Serano, makeup to be a racket, a disempowering farce, a means to reinforce ornamentally as women’s main function. I figured though, that I’d give the thing a shot from my senior year of high school through my first semester at college.  I got sick of off it though. There was no dramatic Mulan-magical-Disney-makeup-remover moment, during which I removed the substances on my face while gazing into the mirror so my reflection could show “who I am inside,”  but rather an agreement with myself that comfort and ease overrode the slight insecurities I had about imperfect skin or barely-there blond eyelashes. That is not to say I don’t love reading the labels on lipsticks, with looking through hues like Cherries in the Snow.. (a shade that makes me feel equally energetic, sassy, and badass—which leads to another question we’ll get to later: how does coating my lips in a bright, scarlet-hued cream impact how I feel? And it’s even better follow up question: is said effect of lip painting have personal or political meaning, or both, and should one trump the other?) Importantly, in terms of what it means to be feminine and to express or not express that, I wouldn’t say I feel any less feminine if I’m not wearing makeup. Makeup may add to the feeling of femininity in my personal experiences, but I wouldn’t say a lack of it has made me feel any less feminine, and Serano would argue that this sentiment is unique to every individual, and that their truth should be validated.

I now feel incredibly comfortable (just as I did before that Experimental Year) with no makeup, and like the subtle confidence that comes with embracing a bare face. But why would not altering your appearance bring confidence? Shouldn’t it just be a neutral state? I think this is wear politics comes in. In a world obsessed with proper gender roles and expressions, it becomes expected that women adopt feminine looks and behaviors, make up being one such item. To forgo that for any reason (be it individual preference which -Serano complicates by explaining its social and biological roots, or an explicit stick-it-to-the-metaphorical-man move) can be considered subversive given they way Bartky applies Foucalt’s self-policing concept. Bartky would likely argue that women self-police themselves to follow expected modes of gender expression due to a fear of some type of retaliation, because the idea of feminine women has become institutionalized. So, not adhering to said “policy” and instead acting in the name of personal comfort or for political motives is necessarily disruptive. An entire debate series conducted by The New York Times proves the engrained ideologies of gender expression. That women’s choices (and men’s.. which are hardly given any attention in pop culture) of how they present themselves should even be questioned, proves how even the smallest move away from the institutionalized norm (here, women expected to present as feminine by wearing makeup) indicates deep-rooted tendencies to look past women’s individual agency. That is, women have so long been expected to adhere to social norms, and are under such scrutiny (which supports Bartky’s point that some kind of invisible watch dogs do in fact exist) that a national news source will run pieces featuring differing views as to whether eyelids should be coated in glitter or not. Most pieces in this 2013 “Room for Debate” column are disappointingly vague, non-committal, and lacking anything truly moving or persuasive. Which is another interesting point: people seemingly want to discuss they way women present themselves, yet not much of value was said in this space aside from clichés like “women should do what they want,” which, might I add comes from man in this case.

So, what does all this mean?? I’m not sure this meandering post brought me to any conclusions except that life in a social world in complicated, and that our individual actions are assigned political meaning based on their adherence to norms whether or not we wish them to. This sounds dreary and inescapable and trapping, and in many ways it is, but maybe getting back to the personal, and a returned focus to the individual can offer some solace. Because isn’t happiness and comfort the biggest gift we can give ourselves? And if that means ignoring that self-policing voice that urges us to avoid questioning the status quo, that voice looses power if we aren’t listening.

Stop The Cycle

Stop The Cycle

~ Beau Rankin

            The statistics are clear – America’s justice system, which has roots in racism, is overwhelmingly targeting minority groups. There are a disproportionate amount of African Americans and Hispanics in prison in comparison to Whites.

Race/Ethnicity	% of US population	% of U.S. incarcerated population	National incarceration rate (per 100,000)
White (non-Hispanic)	64%	39%	450 per 100,000
Hispanic	16%	19%	831 per 100,000
Black	13%	40%	2,306 per 100,000

(http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/rates.html)

            The arguments our politicians come up with always seem too simple for this issue, but liberals generally agree that prison reform is necessary to progress our country and tackle the issues in our justice system. President Obama has attempted to address some of these problems by supporting law reform projects that aim to prevent minorities from facing unfair adversities in their communities. In Normal Life, Dean Spade explains the error surrounding policy reform concerning the justice system in three parts: the law reform projects only modify on paper what a law states and not its implementation, they strengthen the system and help to continue the policing of our most vulnerable citizens, and they offer validations to fund and expand flawed prison systems.

            Black transwomen specifically face the harsh reality of living short lives and high chances of incarceration among other modes of targeting including eviction and being fired due to their identity. Spade highlights black transwomen in his book to show how severe the consequences can be, resulting from our failed attempts at implementing reform in the justice system.  The reform itself could result in more policing and expand the system, so what does that leave us to do? If the system is intrinsically flawed, it must be fundamentally changed or parts of it must be eliminated entirely to make a system that can serve all citizens equally.

            Prison abolitionists do not believe that the system is flawed – they believe that it’s working exactly the way it was originally designed. The injustices began with the slaughtering and imprisonment of Native Americans and continued with the slavery of African Americans. Its face has changed, but our current justice system’s evident purpose is to control, detain, and murder the people who are perceived as threats to the power structures our society is composed of. Minority groups continue to be targeted by law enforcement and compromise most of the underserved citizens in the US. Critical Resistance is a movement representing prison abolitionists who fight to squash the criminal justice system into nothingness and let freedom create the healthy neighborhoods our communities need (http://criticalresistance.org/about/).

            Total prison abolition seems a little far-fetched, though. If we have trouble protecting transgender restroom rights, I do not foresee a collective undoing of the most influential system in the US being realistic in the near future. Is it possible that we are focusing in the wrong area? Thousands of minorities are policed via the means of drug laws and sex work laws – two things that are common among our most underserved citizens. Think about it; why don’t more people go to jail for cocaine and underage drinking versus weed possession, though we know which is more harmful? Eliminating legislature that incarcerates our most vulnerable citizens may be the key to more effective antidiscrimination laws.

           

            Many of our current laws exist in order to contain the threats of equality. Reform with a touch of law abolition may be a realistic concept because it does not completely undermine the system we have been socially trained by. There are many benefits to this mode of reform. The money in taxes saved by not sending drug addicts to jail can pay for them to receive treatment in a rehabilitation facility as well as give counseling to those who commit other crimes. The majority of people in prison are recidivistic, or repeat offenders. There are forms of help available to transform unhealthy citizens into able and working class people who have the potential to improve our communities by being employees, students, and keeping their families together.

            The architect of Portugal’s drug reform claims that it is still difficult to establish causality between the decriminalization of drugs and the reduced drug use they have seen in the country. However, we do know something – it reduces the stigmatization drug users face and allows them to seek help more readily. Countries that implement this reform are treating drug addiction like a disease, not a crime (unlike the US). The results are astounding. Would this method prove useful for other crimes? Would a prostitute benefit from psychological counseling and in turn leave the field of sex work? These are questions we must ask in order to seek a change in the justice system. After all, we know that if a rapist is released from prison after just months and possession of marijuana can land you years, something is terribly wrong.

           

            I do not propose that murderers be let loose to perpetrate more violence - we know that there are good and bad people in this world, and heinous criminals should definitely be contained. The fallacy that our erroneous justice system presents is that the bad people in our society are the underserved minorities who are incarcerated by the masses and sucked into a black hole with no hope of escape. Whether it is further reform, abolition, or a mix between the two, something must be done to change the narrative for minority groups in the US.

           

Reference:

Spade, Dean. Normal life: Administrative violence, critical trans politics, and the limits of law. Duke University Press, 2015.

Pop Persona vs Feminine Facade

Recently, my art professor brought to my attention a music artist/internet figure That Poppy. While he is unsure if she is an independent artist, a character part of an overall subversive art project, or a plant of some large corporation or record label that has successfully cracked the code, viral internet phenomena, That Poppy is definitely an interesting figure. Her character (which I will discuss below), got me thinking about the way in which she, and other musicians have created personas that play with ideas of femininity and stereotype in order to critique or subvert them. The two I have in mind for this blog's discussion are That Poppy and Marina Diamandis, of Marina and the Diamonds.

I'll start with Poppy, since she requires a fair bit of background.

That Poppy
 (http://celebmix.com/discover-that-poppy/)

Personally, I am most interested in examining That Poppy, because she is an interesting person – or rather figure? ….or maybe character? Or art project? See – the thing with Poppy is that its very difficult to determine exactly what's going on without doing some pretty involved digging (it does come to light that Poppy is indeed a persona created by artist Moirah Pereira). She emerged around 2014, primarily through her presence on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube, and has since gathered a bit of a cult following. The reason why is probably pretty obvious if you watch some of her YouTube videos, which handily flirt with the uncanny valley, and her symbol laden, critical music video Lowlife. Her whole aesthetic, with its Lolita/doll-like outfits that mix lace and frills with eyeballs and fur, her pastel color pallet, lisping childish voice, and big doe eyes is deliberately, overtly feminine. And yet there is something definitively unsettling about her. She almost is a little too much towards “android” and not enough towards “actual human being”. Of course, this vagueness isn't helped by Poppy herself, as she refuses to identify with an age (her own words), says the bear minimum about her past, and refers to herself in the third person.

What I'm most interested, in all of her sugar-pastel-barbie-surrealism, is the way in which she is using this specific brand of femininity, and the way she is treated because of it. If you look into her videos and music close enough, its obvious that her content isn't simply silly or odd for the sake of being odd—there's thought and critique behind it (for instance her cleverly satirical song/music video Money). But it seems to me, especially after watching the interaction between Poppy and the interviewer DJ Niko, she's not always taken seriously.

An interview of Poppy by DJ Niko

I assert here that Poppy's specific performance of femininity can be related in part back to Serano's discussion in her chapter “Putting the Feminine Back into Feminism” of her book Whipping Girl. Serano discusses the stereotype of femininity in the “damsel in distress” – a helpless, fragile, frivolous, irrational femininity that needs a masculine rescuer – and says that this description of femininity (because these traits certainly aren't only assigned to the stereotype of the damsel in distress) results in “assumption that those who express femininity are not to be taken seriously and cannot be seen as legitimate authority figures”. I think that this is exactly what happens with Poppy: through her self-portrayal in very specific feminine aesthetic and behavior, she lends herself to this stereotype. However she does so deliberately, mixing in uncanny and disturbing (both overt and subtle) elements to her act. This combination allows her to both play into, and subvert and critique expectations of femininity in pop and music.

The second musician I'm looking at also uses her feminine persona for a similar use.

The 'Electra Heart' album cover
(source)

Marina Diamandis, known as Marina and the Diamonds released her first album in 2010. In her second album, 'Electra Heart', she wrote and performed through the character of Electra Heart, a 50's housewife styled embodiment of the more vacuous elements of pop stars and the American Dream.

Marina as Electra Heart in a staged photoshoot
(source)

A good example of this character would be in the video for her song Primadona, in which she plays the part of a Madonna-type, wealth obsessed character. However, within Marina's performance of Electra, there is an awareness that she is acting out tropes and stereotypes assigned to female pop stars, and is deliberately assuming them through her dress, performance, and lyrics.

Both of these artists, I think, may exist somewhere in between Serano's idea of femininity being something empowering, natural, and Foucault's artificial, patriarchally created and upheld definition of femininity. They take their own identity as women artists and enhance them – they create something more. They both simultaneously embrace and violate the expectations and stereotypes of femininity. In this way, I argue that their performance is subversive.

Why We Don't All Have Kim K's Butt

https://clairedowler.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/dissection/

http://nypost.com/2015/09/12/meet-the-
man-who-helped-kim-kardashian-
break-the-internet/

Body shape. Are you curvy? Are you curvy in the ‘right’ spots? Are your breasts proportional to the rest of your body? Or your butt? Or hips? Do you have that desired hourglass shape? Or are you really just fine in the body you have and should turn off the noise about what your body should be?

            Lately, social media displays a dichotomy about the female body. There are magazines and TV ads and ‘articles’ on Facebook that all portray the same essence of the female body. Over and over. There’s Kim K with her round, voluptuous, oiled butt splayed in her notorious Paper® magazine cover. In malls and TV commercials, there are Victoria’s Secret Angels™. On fitness posters, there are slim women with toned muscles, though not enough to be prominent, who work out to “feel good.” Even the pregnant women shown in mainstream media maintain a curvy shape, devoid of any stretch marks, loose skin, or excessive weight gain.

https://www.theskinnyconfidential.com/2012/08/02/how-to-look-like-victorias-
secret-angels-by-trainer-chris-law/

            Now, though, a growing campaign for body positivity is circulating. It combats all the stereotypes present in my above examples and thousands more that pass within our societal radar on a consistent basis. There’s The Body Positive Project  that is working to end negative body image. Individuals are taking this philosophy on too, posting on Facebook or Instagram or some other site about their journey to body positivity. Colleges, even high schools, are beginning to hold forums, talks, or small group discussions about body image and what it means to learn to love your body.

            While diet culture as a whole is a topic for another day, dieting and exercise play a significant role in women and girls dictating how they perceive their body. And why they think about their body in the ways they do. In Sandra Lee Bartky’s critique of Foucault’sdescription of “docile bodies,” she argues there exists a stark difference between male and female bodies. Indeed, a glance at the media, an overheard conversation through the grocery store, or picking up a novel will tell and show you how dictated female bodies are. Bartky characterizes the ideal female body as “taut, small-breasted, narrow-hipped…” with an overall aura of smallness.

While this piece was written in the late 1970s, the expectation of small still manifests all through mainstream media. The images of women that circulate have these ever-desired characteristics. The fear of fat goes hand in hand with that expectation. Which is why diet culture persists year after year, because women are told, implicitly and explicitly, that they should keep their figures small, unassuming, fatless, yet still shapely. Many women claim they exercise for the enjoyment. But are they enjoying it because of how strong and capable their bodies feel as a result, or because they enjoy knowing they’re working toward a desired body shape?

With the discussion of body positivity starting to permeate the media, ever so slightly, these kinds of questions are asked a lot. Do you really exercise for the sheer enjoyment? Do you put on makeup or intricately do your hair because you like to? Is that kale actually delicious? It makes me stop to think if I’m doing what I’m doing because I really, truly want to. Or because I know consciously or subconsciously I should in order to keep up with the expectations everyone, it seems, around me has for me. The mind boggling inquiry comes, too, in whether you can truly want to do something like diet or exercise for the sheer enjoyment or if it’s so ingrained in our brain it’s impossible to separate expectation from pleasure.

https://boldomatic.com/view/post/9g_mHw

In thinking about all of this, something stirs in me. When I see magazine cover after cover, a commercial, a actress, a singer, portrayed in a very public manner, 95% of the women I see are white, likely no bigger than a size 6, and have “shapely’ bodies. Part of me is angry. Because there are millions of women in this country alone who cannot identify with those body types. Who have this expectation of having their fat deposits in the proper place on their body. Who, when that doesn’t happen the way they think it should, are upset. They’re incredibly upset. They feel undervalued. Worthless. Flawed. I know because I’ve felt that way. I still feel that way on many days.

            And I look around at all the body positivity posts on Instagram or Facebook by women who are also trying to combat these public expectations yet aren’t overweight, let alone obese, for their height. And I’m angry with what they’re saying because they’ve never been 200 plus pounds. They don’t know what it’s like to go up and up in clothing sizes yet still never need a size greater than a 6. The posts I see come from women whose weights fluctuated and they’re now “taking control of their lives” by eat nutritiously, exercising well, and shedding that weight.

            Yet I shouldn’t think that. That anger I have toward them because that perspective is truly harmful not only to other women and girls, but to myself. And it undermines any body positivity work that does provide success and high self-esteem in other women. We all struggle with different understandings of ourselves. And perspective is incredibly influential in determining what we think and why.

            And reading what I just thought, wrote, and am now publishing is horrible. I’m now, too, contributing to the body ideal expectations of women by diminishing their experiences.

So as I sit here eating yet another bowl of Coldstone ice cream, because that’s what I do when I’m upset, I’m wondering how I can feel better about all of this. People can preach all they want to their audiences about how great it would be if everyone loved their bodies regardless of expectations and how their bodies really turned out. But if I can’t believe that about myself, there’s no way I can tell other people to do the same. So why can’t I accept the beautiful body I was given? Is it because we’re bombarded by the media with desired figures? Or overhear almost daily in conversation what’s wrong with her body, coming from a third person judgment? What is it going to take for me to feel okay about myself in ways it seems so many other women online feel about their bodies? Truthfully, I don’t know. I really don’t. 

Reaction

Cy Perry

WGSS 275

Professor Shaw 

Blog 2

9/7/2016

        Response to “Ain’t I a Woman?” 

Popular costar in the Netflix original series, “Orange is the New Black,” Laverne Cox gave a sensational speech about what it is to be a transgendered person in the United States. Cox, who’s transition from male to female character, was shown throughout the Netflix series, is one of the icons in the trans community. She has shown what the process is like, talked about her own stories of oppression and has also told her audiences that it is all accomplishable. Her speech that basically reenacted  Sojourner Truth’s speech, was the first done by a trans gendered person. The powerful speech was given at her talk about the way the trans community faces adversity and what is we as a community have to do to help the problem. Although this speech does not advertenly effect me, I was moved by it’s power. Although Cox did not completely read the speech word for word, she used some of the same ideas that Truth used and implemented it into what it is she was trying to persuade.
Kerry Washington, a top tier African American Actress, also reenacted the speech that Truth is so famously remembered for. Although Washington’s was in different context than that of Cox, Washington still had a tremendously powerful message concerning the issues with the racial bias that African American women face on a daily basis. Both of these two speeches are a must see to anyone who challenges the oppression faced by women and trans gendered people in every day circumstances.
As far as a personal reaction, I was moved by both of these talks. Two women of such prowess can simply get you on their side just simply by speaking. I am a fan of both of these individuals, (Washington in her comedic roles, and Cox in her powerful role in Orange is the New Black,) and have gained a tremendous amount of respect for both of these individuals. More reason than not, other than the fact that these two speeches were immensely effective in providing the community with more knowledge about the ideals they were speaking about, but because I have never seen these two act as the ambassadors that they are.
Many times celebrities will state their opinion about certain things that are going on with a community and will say that more people should have the same opinion as themselves. For example, the shootings that have killed many African American citizens of the United States. This was different. These speeches were carefully thought through, and these two were made into something of an icon for more than just their roles on the screen. They were made into ambassadors of the movements they are representing. This circumstance is new to me. I have never once seen a celebrity play a role in a movement like this before. Not only are they the first I have ever seen create this powerful effect from just talking, but they are also women. A good piece to see some of the communities reactions can be seen here, http://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/05/laverne_cox.html . It is always important to see others reactions to compare them to your own. This helps a reader gain more from a perspective they may not have had.
In the biased community that the US has come to be, it is rare to see women have a role in such important roles. That it just a statement I have come to see. That is why these two pieces were so special to me.  They are the first ones to really have an impact on me. That is why this piece was so crucial to my learning experience. That is because it felt truly genuine because I have never seen anything like it.
 

The “No makeup” Makeup Routine and the High Standards that it Exposes

In Sandra Lee Bartkey’s article Focult, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power, she describes in detail the ways in which women are expected to outwardly perform their gender. Amidst her analysis of the absurdity of the rigid and rigorous beauty routine that women go through, she highlights that “The crown and pinnacle of good haircare and skincare is, of course, the arrangement of the hair and the application of cosmetics…Furthermore, since a properly made-up face is…at least a badge of acceptability in most social and professional contexts, the woman who chooses not to wear cosmetics at all faces sanctions” (85).

            However, in a strange foil to these “sanctions,” Bartkey mentions several magazine covers, YouTube makeup tutorials, and online fashion blogs have recently been purporting the “no makeup” makeup routine. This WikiHow article, “How to Apply Makeup for a Natural Look,” claims that “a fresh face is always in style…of course, the natural look takes a little bit of time and practice.”  What follows is a 13-step, three-part foray into moisturizing, concealing, powdering, bronzing, blushing, lining, and shimmering. The article calls for the use of around ten to fifteen products to achieve the appearance of the absence of makeup, a routine that could easily be avoided if one simply opted to not wear makeup instead. What is the purpose of purchasing cosmetics and spending a large amount of time applying them only to achieve the same “dewy, fresh, radiant look” that the naked human face already possesses?

            A surface reading of Bartkey’s claim that wearing makeup daily is “at least a badge of acceptability” suggests that the “no makeup” routine could be a woman’s way of presenting the closest thing to her un-makeuped face to the public as possible while still satisfying social convention. However, later in the piece Bartkey claims that the high demands place on women to perfect their appearance “suggests…that their bodies are deficient.” (85). When Bartkey previously suggested “a properly made-up face,” she was alluding to a face that follows the doctrine of a perfected woman. “A properly made-up face” is one that is virtually impossible to achieve with an unpainted face. So a makeup routine that creates the allusion of a lack of makeup, even if it achieves a glowing, unblemished face, still fails to meet the standards for “a properly made up face.” The “natural” makeup look, even though it does still satisfy the demands placed on women to wear makeup, still fails to meet the societal expectations for what type of appearance that makeup should achieve.

            For example, when Taylor Swift appeared on the November 2014 cover of the music and fashion magazine Wonderland, she was without a doubt fully made up. However, because she had traded her typical public performance—red lipstick, black eyeliner, neatly placed and straightened hair—for a plainer palette of brown contouring lines and shadows, a strangely bewildered reaction ensued. Billboard magazine called her “nearly unrecognizable (but still gorgeous!),” implying that while Swift did not fit the public persona that they were used to, her appearance was still, at least acceptable. MTV news was more in depth in their shocked reaction to the Wonderland cover, making such elegant observations as “If the name Taylor Swift wasn’t in the headline of this post, would you even recognize her?? Like, would you be able to pick this tanned and bold-browed woman out of a crowd and appropriately squeal, “OMG Taylor Swift, I love your work!!”? I don’t think so.” This statement becomes problematic in many ways—firstly, it states that Taylor Swift’s entire identity is based o her appearance, that without her usual cosmetics she ceases to become a recognizable name and just a nameless “tanned and bold-browed woman.” Secondly, the use of the voice of an imagined fan, ecstatic of Swift’s music yet unable to identify the artist because of her appearance, implies that not only is Swift’s normal makeup routine essential to her physical identity, but to her professional and artistic identities as well.

            Would the response to the Wonderland cover be one of less shock and awe is Swift had appeared in more the more overdone makeup look that is more typical of magazine covers? If she had appeared on the cover with heavier makeup than usual, would pop culture outlets still be calling her “unrecognizable?” Or would she be be lauded with approval, the “but” removed from “but still gorgeous?”

            Swift’s appearance on the Wonderland cover is still a heavily made up one, but it the application of the makeup falls in line with the previously mentioned natural makeup tutorial—bronzers, blush, nude lip gloss, eye shadow only slightly darker than Swift’s skin tone.  So, while Swift is still fulfilling the expectation to improve her face, she is still showing too much of natural self—she, and the concept of the natural makeup routine, have not earned the “badge of acceptability.”