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.