My complicated relationship with red lipstick and why we think only certain people can wear it. My feelings towards the pervasiveness of our Puritan history and misconstrued expectations of feminism.
i think another part of this is that the suffragist movement was originally for white women! who are these power plays really for u know?? anyways, amazing work as always thierry i love being inside your mind
Ooh, that's something I hadn't considered. I love that you bring up that point, and it makes me wonder how the color red could have been embraced by people of different races...
To be honest, while I find your inclinations that we live in a patriarchal society to be endearing, it is quite alarming that you actually believe such things. The individual decides his or her purpose, and to an extent his or her fate, and any implication otherwise takes away from individual responsibility and individual agency as a whole. Feminism at its core argues that women are people too, with their own individual desires and goals, and should have the full ability and responsibility to pursue them however those individuals wish. It is, at its core, an exaltation of individualism, not a demonization. And if you define your existence based off the attractiveness of males, then quite literally you are creating your own prison, not the inverse. If you do not want to wear lipstick, don't. If you do, then do. But defining terms in 'us' vs 'them' undermines the whole concept of feminism, and looping in all females, and males for that matter, defeats the whole purpose of individualism.
Your allusions to the Scarlett Letter, though, were amusing.
I completely agree that implications of living within a patriarchal society or whatever oppressive society takes away from individual responsibility and agency as a whole. However, I think there are a lot of implicit factors and socializations that we are unaware are shaping us despite our love for individual agency. I could prioritize being autonomous and still be influenced by external factors whether that be patriarchal residues or parental expectations, the like.
I completely agree that feminism at its core argues that women are people, too, but it definitely gets warped whether that be through the media or uneducated people. You could make the comparison of people trying to fight against racism and then losing sight of their goal in hopes of sounding "woke". Then, others view that person as inauthentic. In a similar way, I know many women in my life who are firm believers that women are people and not inferior due to their gender. However, they refuse to call themselves feminist because the way that it has been demonized. Just because the intention of it is to exalt women does not mean that the term hasn't been used to demonize women (I'm not arguing for its demonization either).
Also, I would like to know where I was advocating for defining our existence based off male attractiveness. I could pull this paragraph from my article:
"The implications behind the advice given to Bozama Saint John is one of shame. We are not meant to wear red lipstick because it means that we are free. We cannot be free because society, specifically men, will not love us like that. We need men to love us because that is what we are made for: relationships with men."
If you don't understand my writing style, I was mirroring the rabbit hole we go down when we try to base our existence off male attractiveness. I was actually mocking it in a way, but I can see how my writing style isn't clear (I do write these blog posts quite quickly).
Lastly, I would hate to create an 'us' vs. 'them', so if that came across in the article, I'd like to amend that. I actually despise the way our society groups things as 'us' vs. 'them', but it is hard to write a 5-min readable article without creating some sort of divide. I totally acknowledge the fact that not every woman is like that and not every man is like that. In fact, I acknowledge the fact that gender is a spectrum, and my article doesn't acknowledge the experience of those multitudes of experiences. It's simply a matter of limited time and space.
Nonetheless, I always appreciate criticism and would love to re-visit this article taking into account your commentary. There is a lot of nuance I can't cover in 1000 words, but I try to just hint at some objective with my articles. The objective of this article was this idea that red lipstick can be seen as "too bold"; I personally always thought it would just never look good on me. How would I know if I never tried? I think a root of that thinking was a fear of being too much because women are historically meant to be quieter, meant to confine to male expectations. Also, trying to move out of defining your existence based off male attractiveness is an incredibly hard thing to do; my friends and I know from personal experience, and I would hate for you to minimize that work by saying that it's our fault for creating this prison for ourselves.
Hope you have a great day and would love to talk about this further.
i think another part of this is that the suffragist movement was originally for white women! who are these power plays really for u know?? anyways, amazing work as always thierry i love being inside your mind
Ooh, that's something I hadn't considered. I love that you bring up that point, and it makes me wonder how the color red could have been embraced by people of different races...
To be honest, while I find your inclinations that we live in a patriarchal society to be endearing, it is quite alarming that you actually believe such things. The individual decides his or her purpose, and to an extent his or her fate, and any implication otherwise takes away from individual responsibility and individual agency as a whole. Feminism at its core argues that women are people too, with their own individual desires and goals, and should have the full ability and responsibility to pursue them however those individuals wish. It is, at its core, an exaltation of individualism, not a demonization. And if you define your existence based off the attractiveness of males, then quite literally you are creating your own prison, not the inverse. If you do not want to wear lipstick, don't. If you do, then do. But defining terms in 'us' vs 'them' undermines the whole concept of feminism, and looping in all females, and males for that matter, defeats the whole purpose of individualism.
Your allusions to the Scarlett Letter, though, were amusing.
I completely agree that implications of living within a patriarchal society or whatever oppressive society takes away from individual responsibility and agency as a whole. However, I think there are a lot of implicit factors and socializations that we are unaware are shaping us despite our love for individual agency. I could prioritize being autonomous and still be influenced by external factors whether that be patriarchal residues or parental expectations, the like.
I completely agree that feminism at its core argues that women are people, too, but it definitely gets warped whether that be through the media or uneducated people. You could make the comparison of people trying to fight against racism and then losing sight of their goal in hopes of sounding "woke". Then, others view that person as inauthentic. In a similar way, I know many women in my life who are firm believers that women are people and not inferior due to their gender. However, they refuse to call themselves feminist because the way that it has been demonized. Just because the intention of it is to exalt women does not mean that the term hasn't been used to demonize women (I'm not arguing for its demonization either).
Also, I would like to know where I was advocating for defining our existence based off male attractiveness. I could pull this paragraph from my article:
"The implications behind the advice given to Bozama Saint John is one of shame. We are not meant to wear red lipstick because it means that we are free. We cannot be free because society, specifically men, will not love us like that. We need men to love us because that is what we are made for: relationships with men."
If you don't understand my writing style, I was mirroring the rabbit hole we go down when we try to base our existence off male attractiveness. I was actually mocking it in a way, but I can see how my writing style isn't clear (I do write these blog posts quite quickly).
Lastly, I would hate to create an 'us' vs. 'them', so if that came across in the article, I'd like to amend that. I actually despise the way our society groups things as 'us' vs. 'them', but it is hard to write a 5-min readable article without creating some sort of divide. I totally acknowledge the fact that not every woman is like that and not every man is like that. In fact, I acknowledge the fact that gender is a spectrum, and my article doesn't acknowledge the experience of those multitudes of experiences. It's simply a matter of limited time and space.
Nonetheless, I always appreciate criticism and would love to re-visit this article taking into account your commentary. There is a lot of nuance I can't cover in 1000 words, but I try to just hint at some objective with my articles. The objective of this article was this idea that red lipstick can be seen as "too bold"; I personally always thought it would just never look good on me. How would I know if I never tried? I think a root of that thinking was a fear of being too much because women are historically meant to be quieter, meant to confine to male expectations. Also, trying to move out of defining your existence based off male attractiveness is an incredibly hard thing to do; my friends and I know from personal experience, and I would hate for you to minimize that work by saying that it's our fault for creating this prison for ourselves.
Hope you have a great day and would love to talk about this further.