That's a clickbait-ey headline, I know.
In August of last year, I blogged this...
Please read it if you want to read this post, so I don't have to repeat myself.
I was having a great time watching the unfolding results of the Queensland election tonight, cheering every time the neo-cons lost another seat. It's my version of sports.
And then my twitter feed dropped the hashtag #SmearForSmear on me, and just like Robin Lawley in that last blog (did you read it or not?), I thought "Here we fucking go again!"
And I'm sick of being polite about it. I'm sick of acting like it's no big deal. I'm sick of otherwise-intelligent women (and a few men too), acting like it's ok to whore themselves out to cosmetics companies for free, and hurt other people in the process.
Remember smoking? Remember when people fell for that? (If you still smoke you're an embarrassment to society- please fuck off and die away from the rest of us). Well this is like that.
'Lipstick' is a handy word to use when you can't remember all of this-
Trimethylsiloxyphenyl Dimethicone (hair conditioning agent),
Isododecane (solvent),
Polypropylsilsesquioxane (Binding agent; Film-forming agent),
Cyclopentasiloxane (solvent),
Polyethylene (Abrasive; Adhesive; Emulsion Stabilizer; Film-forming agent; Thickener),
Stearyl Heptanoate (Emollient),
Ozokerite (wax),
Hydrogenated Styrene/Methyl Styrene/Indene Copolymer (Film-forming agent),
C30-45 Alkyldimethylsilyl Polypropylsilsesquioxane,
Silica Dimethyl Silylate (Anti-caking agent),
Alumina (Abrasive; Opacifying agent),
Parfum / Fragrance (but no indication what's in that fragrance),
Cyclomethicone (Solvent; Viscosity Controlling; Humectant),
Calcium Aluminum Borosilicate (Bulking agent),
Synthetic Fluorphlogopite (Hydrophilic Thickener),
Calcium Sodium Borosilicate (glass flakes),
Benzyl Alcohol (Synthetic preservative),
Silica (Mineral rock),
Pentaerythrityl Tetra-Di-T-Butyl Hydroxyhydrocinnamate (Antioxidant to counteract all the oxides in lipstick),
Polyethylene Terephthalate (synthetic resin),
Tin Oxide (literally rusty tin),
Aluminum Hydroxide (Antacid),
Acrylates Copolymer (Adheisive: Acrylic acid and methacrylic acid building blocks),
Paraffin (Flammable wax),
Dimethicone (Synthetic silicon oil).
You eat that ^.
Glamorous people using social media (or traditional media) to sell a product for corporations that hate them and you. They want your money. That's all they want. They don't like you, or care about you. Everything they say is for one reason- to take money out of your bag and put it in their pockets.
The cosmetics industry has a long and illustrious history of blatantly lying to its customers, of inventing science-y sounding words for things like the fat in sheeps wool to sell you futuristic skin creams with(out any) magical youth-enhancing capabilities. If this is news to you, please put down the gossip rag and fucking read something useful.
In a lot of cases their products do nothing. In a few cases they do something (that natural and cheap/free products do just as well if not better). And in some cases they work excellently but can kill you.
But in this case (lipstick), it either contains cancer-causing chemicals and can harm you and your unborn children if you have those, or it can be glamourised to other people who can be harmed if you dodged a bullet.
And that's ok. I mean, freedom of choice, right? I'm drinking a Pepsi right now (and that's basically cancer in a can), so I'm the last person to take away your right to hurt yourself. Hurting others, I don't agree with...
So to be clear, it's not that people can get cancer from lipstick that bothers me, a totally unfashionable white male in Australia. It's the blatant ignorance and denial.
I replied to tweets from a few big accounts on Twitter about this hashtag, like Stephen Fry, Cara Delvigne, Jo's Trust; as well as whoever was at the top of the feed.
Here's a reply:
"It's a friendly marketing tool", she said, ignoring the evidence and blindly swearing alliegance to a celebrity-driven campaign to make money for cosmetics companies while using cancer as the cause. AND INCREASING THE RISK OF CANCER TO THOSE INVOLVED.
She blocked me after that. "La la laaaa, I can't hear the mean man so everything is fine now."
And that's what kills me.
Women actually fight for cosmetics. They think they empower them. They don't.
Normally when you get fat or oil on your lips, you wipe it off. You don't go around and carefully maintain it all day, let alone go buy more to do touch ups with. But that's what lipstick is. Fat/oil/chemicals.
Chances are, it was tested on animals.
Are you ok with that?
"Oh, but I wear vegan lipstick." Congratulations. Unless you make that clear to every soft-headed other girl out there, they may copy you and buy unsustainably sourced or animal-unfriendly products.
And if you don't care about destruction of habitat or animal testing or cancer or killing your own baby, then I don't really have anything to say to you anyway. Anyone like that is a fucking monster.
The hilarious thing is, women wear it because they think it's "glamorous".
Glamour is a marketing tool used to sell everything from cigarettes to diamonds, and also cosmetics. It's a man-made concept. It's simply an arbitrary and totally invented thing to part you with your money. And you simply believe it because someone told it to you (like religion or the claim that the sports team from your geographical location is far superior to the sports team from another geographical location).
If you were born into a different culture with different beauty norms, you'd act completely differently. Admit that.
Wearing lipstick is a way for you to fit in, and compete with other women. Men don't like it unless it's something they've fetishized (because men are as dumb as women, just in different ways).
Of course what men like doesn't really matter when it comes to a woman's agency. But it's a consideration for those who have never stopped to think about any of this before.
All I'm trying to say here is this:
If you thought for yourself, if you shrugged off all the bullshit that is inherent to and with conforming, competing, staying ignorant (because it's not sexy to know things, apparently), and jumping on stupid hashtag causes without research (like #IllRideWithYou); then corporations couldn't manipulate you into buying things you have no need for, and only fight for because you've been conditioned to.
If you have 1000 pairs of sustainably sourced heels, and that makes you feel beautiful- more power to you.
But stop trying to justify something so stupid (and dangerous to you, the environment, and to animals) by simply closing your ears.
I have great faith in people. Prove me right.
This just in- I saw this on The Guardian site today, and felt it definitely warranted inclusion.
Text-
In August of last year, I blogged this...
Please read it if you want to read this post, so I don't have to repeat myself.
I was having a great time watching the unfolding results of the Queensland election tonight, cheering every time the neo-cons lost another seat. It's my version of sports.
And then my twitter feed dropped the hashtag #SmearForSmear on me, and just like Robin Lawley in that last blog (did you read it or not?), I thought "Here we fucking go again!"
And I'm sick of being polite about it. I'm sick of acting like it's no big deal. I'm sick of otherwise-intelligent women (and a few men too), acting like it's ok to whore themselves out to cosmetics companies for free, and hurt other people in the process.
Remember smoking? Remember when people fell for that? (If you still smoke you're an embarrassment to society- please fuck off and die away from the rest of us). Well this is like that.
'Lipstick' is a handy word to use when you can't remember all of this-
Trimethylsiloxyphenyl Dimethicone (hair conditioning agent),
Isododecane (solvent),
Polypropylsilsesquioxane (Binding agent; Film-forming agent),
Cyclopentasiloxane (solvent),
Polyethylene (Abrasive; Adhesive; Emulsion Stabilizer; Film-forming agent; Thickener),
Stearyl Heptanoate (Emollient),
Ozokerite (wax),
Hydrogenated Styrene/Methyl Styrene/Indene Copolymer (Film-forming agent),
C30-45 Alkyldimethylsilyl Polypropylsilsesquioxane,
Silica Dimethyl Silylate (Anti-caking agent),
Alumina (Abrasive; Opacifying agent),
Parfum / Fragrance (but no indication what's in that fragrance),
Cyclomethicone (Solvent; Viscosity Controlling; Humectant),
Calcium Aluminum Borosilicate (Bulking agent),
Synthetic Fluorphlogopite (Hydrophilic Thickener),
Calcium Sodium Borosilicate (glass flakes),
Benzyl Alcohol (Synthetic preservative),
Silica (Mineral rock),
Pentaerythrityl Tetra-Di-T-Butyl Hydroxyhydrocinnamate (Antioxidant to counteract all the oxides in lipstick),
Polyethylene Terephthalate (synthetic resin),
Tin Oxide (literally rusty tin),
Aluminum Hydroxide (Antacid),
Acrylates Copolymer (Adheisive: Acrylic acid and methacrylic acid building blocks),
Paraffin (Flammable wax),
Dimethicone (Synthetic silicon oil).
You eat that ^.
Glamorous people using social media (or traditional media) to sell a product for corporations that hate them and you. They want your money. That's all they want. They don't like you, or care about you. Everything they say is for one reason- to take money out of your bag and put it in their pockets.
The cosmetics industry has a long and illustrious history of blatantly lying to its customers, of inventing science-y sounding words for things like the fat in sheeps wool to sell you futuristic skin creams with(out any) magical youth-enhancing capabilities. If this is news to you, please put down the gossip rag and fucking read something useful.
In a lot of cases their products do nothing. In a few cases they do something (that natural and cheap/free products do just as well if not better). And in some cases they work excellently but can kill you.
But in this case (lipstick), it either contains cancer-causing chemicals and can harm you and your unborn children if you have those, or it can be glamourised to other people who can be harmed if you dodged a bullet.
And that's ok. I mean, freedom of choice, right? I'm drinking a Pepsi right now (and that's basically cancer in a can), so I'm the last person to take away your right to hurt yourself. Hurting others, I don't agree with...
So to be clear, it's not that people can get cancer from lipstick that bothers me, a totally unfashionable white male in Australia. It's the blatant ignorance and denial.
I replied to tweets from a few big accounts on Twitter about this hashtag, like Stephen Fry, Cara Delvigne, Jo's Trust; as well as whoever was at the top of the feed.
Here's a reply:
"It's a friendly marketing tool", she said, ignoring the evidence and blindly swearing alliegance to a celebrity-driven campaign to make money for cosmetics companies while using cancer as the cause. AND INCREASING THE RISK OF CANCER TO THOSE INVOLVED.
She blocked me after that. "La la laaaa, I can't hear the mean man so everything is fine now."
And that's what kills me.
Women actually fight for cosmetics. They think they empower them. They don't.
Normally when you get fat or oil on your lips, you wipe it off. You don't go around and carefully maintain it all day, let alone go buy more to do touch ups with. But that's what lipstick is. Fat/oil/chemicals.
Chances are, it was tested on animals.
Are you ok with that?
"Oh, but I wear vegan lipstick." Congratulations. Unless you make that clear to every soft-headed other girl out there, they may copy you and buy unsustainably sourced or animal-unfriendly products.
And if you don't care about destruction of habitat or animal testing or cancer or killing your own baby, then I don't really have anything to say to you anyway. Anyone like that is a fucking monster.
The hilarious thing is, women wear it because they think it's "glamorous".
Glamour is a marketing tool used to sell everything from cigarettes to diamonds, and also cosmetics. It's a man-made concept. It's simply an arbitrary and totally invented thing to part you with your money. And you simply believe it because someone told it to you (like religion or the claim that the sports team from your geographical location is far superior to the sports team from another geographical location).
If you were born into a different culture with different beauty norms, you'd act completely differently. Admit that.
Wearing lipstick is a way for you to fit in, and compete with other women. Men don't like it unless it's something they've fetishized (because men are as dumb as women, just in different ways).
Of course what men like doesn't really matter when it comes to a woman's agency. But it's a consideration for those who have never stopped to think about any of this before.
All I'm trying to say here is this:
If you thought for yourself, if you shrugged off all the bullshit that is inherent to and with conforming, competing, staying ignorant (because it's not sexy to know things, apparently), and jumping on stupid hashtag causes without research (like #IllRideWithYou); then corporations couldn't manipulate you into buying things you have no need for, and only fight for because you've been conditioned to.
If you have 1000 pairs of sustainably sourced heels, and that makes you feel beautiful- more power to you.
But stop trying to justify something so stupid (and dangerous to you, the environment, and to animals) by simply closing your ears.
I have great faith in people. Prove me right.
This just in- I saw this on The Guardian site today, and felt it definitely warranted inclusion.
Text-
No industry has aligned itself more closely with the breast cancer
movement than the cosmetics industry. It’s long flooded the market with
pink ribbon products: pink ribbon lipstick, pink ribbon nail polish,
pink ribbon perfume.
Yet while they prominently claim to care about women with breast cancer, their pink ribbon products all too often actually increase risk of the disease – and, as if that’s not bad enough, they’re also pushing toxic products on women in active cancer treatment.
Look Good Feel Better is a psychosocial support program run by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), the largest national trade group for the cosmetics industry, and the American Cancer Society (ACS), the nation’s largest cancer charity. They hold free workshops that give beauty tips and complimentary makeup kits to women in cancer treatment – support that some women understandably value while facing a cancer diagnosis and treatments that may alter their appearance.
Member companies of the Personal Care Products Council (like Avon and Estee Lauder) donate cosmetic products for the kits given to cancer patients. The American Cancer Society administers the program nationwide. Cosmetologists donate their time to run the workshops. It’s all selfless altruism, until you look a bit closer.
Cosmetics and personal care products are notoriously unregulated and full of toxic chemicals, and for years activists have been pushing back on cosmetics companies putting pink ribbons on products containing chemicals linked to breast cancer. But many of the Look Good Feel Better kits contain what are commonly referred to by regulators and scientists as “chemicals of concern”, including carcinogens and hormone disruptors.
Carcinogens are implicated in directly causing cancer, and hormone disruptors can increase breast cancer risk by messing with our body’s hormonal system. When these are products used daily – and the average woman uses 12 personal care products each day containing 168 unique ingredients – these doses add up.
The ACS claims that “the benefit of this program outweighs the risk”, which demonstrates a shocking commitment to the cosmetics industry and a blatant disregard for patient well-being.
These chemicals of concern do not just increase breast cancer risk: some may actually interfere with breast cancer treatment. Most breast cancers are hormone-driven and common treatments target the body’s hormonal system. Many scientists are concerned about the ways hormone-disrupting chemicals in our daily lives can increase the risk of breast cancer. Some hormone disruptors – including methylparaben, which is in concealer and face wipes the ACS is giving to cancer patients – have been shown in a lab to interfere with Tamoxifen, a common hormonal breast cancer treatment.
Currently, no one ensures that cosmetic products are completely safe before they come on the market. Personal care products are regulated by approximately two pages of federal law that has only been updated once in the past 76 years. The Food and Drug Administration lacks the authority to require manufacturers to test personal care products for safety before they are sold to consumers (or given to cancer patients). While the European Union has banned 1,300 chemicals from use in cosmetics, the United States has banned fewer than one dozen. The Personal Care Products Council spends millions of dollars lobbying against cosmetic safety regulations to make sure it stays that way.
Furthermore, cosmetic manufacturers do not have to disclose the ingredients that constitute “fragrance” due to a regulatory gap in the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1973. The term “fragrance” often hides ingredients that have not been assessed for safety and often contain phthalates and parabens; “fragrance” was listed as an ingredient on numerous products in Look Good Feel Better bags, including in mascara.
If the PCPC truly cares about consumer safety as it claims to, the group should hold member companies to a much higher standard of safety instead of lobbying against regulations that would make personal care products less likely to help cause cancer.
And the American Cancer Society must stop protecting the cosmetics industry and started protecting women’s health. They can provide the program’s benefit without the toxic harms. The ACS knows that breast cancer is not pretty, no matter how many pink ribbons are attached – and no matter how many free toxic cosmetics are given to cancer patients.
Yet while they prominently claim to care about women with breast cancer, their pink ribbon products all too often actually increase risk of the disease – and, as if that’s not bad enough, they’re also pushing toxic products on women in active cancer treatment.
Look Good Feel Better is a psychosocial support program run by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), the largest national trade group for the cosmetics industry, and the American Cancer Society (ACS), the nation’s largest cancer charity. They hold free workshops that give beauty tips and complimentary makeup kits to women in cancer treatment – support that some women understandably value while facing a cancer diagnosis and treatments that may alter their appearance.
Member companies of the Personal Care Products Council (like Avon and Estee Lauder) donate cosmetic products for the kits given to cancer patients. The American Cancer Society administers the program nationwide. Cosmetologists donate their time to run the workshops. It’s all selfless altruism, until you look a bit closer.
Cosmetics and personal care products are notoriously unregulated and full of toxic chemicals, and for years activists have been pushing back on cosmetics companies putting pink ribbons on products containing chemicals linked to breast cancer. But many of the Look Good Feel Better kits contain what are commonly referred to by regulators and scientists as “chemicals of concern”, including carcinogens and hormone disruptors.
Carcinogens are implicated in directly causing cancer, and hormone disruptors can increase breast cancer risk by messing with our body’s hormonal system. When these are products used daily – and the average woman uses 12 personal care products each day containing 168 unique ingredients – these doses add up.
The ACS claims that “the benefit of this program outweighs the risk”, which demonstrates a shocking commitment to the cosmetics industry and a blatant disregard for patient well-being.
These chemicals of concern do not just increase breast cancer risk: some may actually interfere with breast cancer treatment. Most breast cancers are hormone-driven and common treatments target the body’s hormonal system. Many scientists are concerned about the ways hormone-disrupting chemicals in our daily lives can increase the risk of breast cancer. Some hormone disruptors – including methylparaben, which is in concealer and face wipes the ACS is giving to cancer patients – have been shown in a lab to interfere with Tamoxifen, a common hormonal breast cancer treatment.
Currently, no one ensures that cosmetic products are completely safe before they come on the market. Personal care products are regulated by approximately two pages of federal law that has only been updated once in the past 76 years. The Food and Drug Administration lacks the authority to require manufacturers to test personal care products for safety before they are sold to consumers (or given to cancer patients). While the European Union has banned 1,300 chemicals from use in cosmetics, the United States has banned fewer than one dozen. The Personal Care Products Council spends millions of dollars lobbying against cosmetic safety regulations to make sure it stays that way.
Furthermore, cosmetic manufacturers do not have to disclose the ingredients that constitute “fragrance” due to a regulatory gap in the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1973. The term “fragrance” often hides ingredients that have not been assessed for safety and often contain phthalates and parabens; “fragrance” was listed as an ingredient on numerous products in Look Good Feel Better bags, including in mascara.
If the PCPC truly cares about consumer safety as it claims to, the group should hold member companies to a much higher standard of safety instead of lobbying against regulations that would make personal care products less likely to help cause cancer.
And the American Cancer Society must stop protecting the cosmetics industry and started protecting women’s health. They can provide the program’s benefit without the toxic harms. The ACS knows that breast cancer is not pretty, no matter how many pink ribbons are attached – and no matter how many free toxic cosmetics are given to cancer patients.
No comments:
Post a Comment