The cosmetics industry is using you to kill your friends, as an unpaid spokesperson. Be mad about it.

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-

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.

The NFL's breast cancer scam sells bunk science to profit off pink clothes

Karuna Jaggar

Read more

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.

Fine Art with a paint roller

This is an opinion piece centered around attitudes discussed in Australia during the week of December  14th-20th...

So much static in newspaper comments sections this week after what has come to be known as the #sydneysiege. 

I read all of the papers, even the horrifically biased ones. I read them all, to glean the facts from the speculation, and observe in wide-eyed wonder the journalistic leaps and assumptions that get made without basis every day. By professional journalists.

And the comments sections are just lousy with people trying to pin everything that happens on the opposing political party (aren't we collectively sick of that juvenile partisan buck-passing yet? Don't we expect more?), and the never-ending battle between the 'right' and the 'left' (whatever they are).

I don't belong to either demographic. I'm rabidly equal rights for women, but in no way feminist. I'm a humanist- I believe in equality, not the splintered misandrist embarrassment feminism has been allowed to become under the hateful watch of Jessica Valenti and Jess Zimmerman. 

I believe in sustainable energy, but also in mandatory minimum prison sentences, which puts me on both sides of the equation. I am heavily pro-CCTV for crime prevention and to aid in prosecution 'after the fact', but believe wholeheartedly that asylum seekers are not getting a fair go in Australia. I'm a big fan of mil-spec tech, but only for those who have been adequately screened and trained.

So what?

When talking about Man Haron Monis, the utterly abhorrent perpetrator of the killings of two innocent people in Martin Place this week, reactions have fallen into two main categories:

1. Muslims are a threat and must be stopped.
2. Australia is a shining example of multicultural success, we must encourage tolerance.

When examining these assertions prima facie, one seems negative, and two seems positive.

And positive is always better, right? Not when it runs counter to logic...

We witnessed the birth of the #IllRideWithYou campaign on twitter, an outpouring of support for Muslims by a population desperate to distance itself from The Cronulla Riots 9 years ago.

And I read waves of comments and posts from people in the community who defended religious freedom in Australia, supported Islam, and accused anyone who spoke against Islam in the context of the siege as Islamophobic, racist, of being a redneck, or a bogan.

But it's not that simple. The facts don't lie on the side of one political ideology or the other. Some people aren't racist or phobic of any religion per se,  but their inbuilt pattern recognition software has logged an inordinate number of spikes in the column for Islamic violence (or violence perpetrated by followers of Islam, whether they were lone-wolves or card carrying members of ISIS). Some others would put forward this has more to do with media bias. And they may even be right. The same can be said for christianity, too.

We've gotten so caught up in what is the definition of terrorism, and the finger pointing that comes with anyone suggesting that Monis fits the bill due to his recent shift in allegiance between Islamic denominations, that we've ignored a simple fact.

If someone identifies as Catholic, then we consider them Catholic. If a Catholic identifies as Christian, then we accept them as Christian. Even though the act of being a Catholic biblically (not a word) precludes them from Christianity, due to Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.", and John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I'm not religious (we'll get to that), but the point here is that the bible (which is the canonical collection of texts sacred to Christianity), is the playbook for Christianity, and if you ignore the playbook- you're off the team. Simply put- logically, Catholics are not Christians. But if they call themselves that, it's only pedantic losers like me who intensively studied Philosophy for years at University that call them out on it.

In the case of Monis, he identified as ISIS, which is a jihadist sect of Sunni Islam. Therefore, who are we to say he isn't? Commentators are at pains to point out he was a "lone gunman" who worked without support, but that's impossible. Even though he was considered a lunatic by his own people, someone still gave him a shotgun. He has been enabled by women all throughout his adult life (and as it transpires, killed one of them). If he claims ISIS, he's ISIS. By their own definition, they encourage and supply tactical information to lone wolves who they've never met, but who have answered the call to arms.

Others would argue that his mental state is where my assertion falls down. He was a crazy misogynist attention-seeker, not a terrorist. So... ISIS isn't packed to the mashrabiya with crazy misogynist attention-seekers? Wait, isn't that their core constituency?

Also, many in Islam protest that ISIS and Al Quaeda don't represent "true" Islam. What is true Islam? What makes one interpretation of a Bronze Age creation myth any more relevant than a slightly different one?  Or more relevant than Buddhism or Pastafarianism? If all of these religions claim to be right, why pay attention to any of them? Especially when none among them can offer proof? You can't come up with a slightly different version of science that also passes the repeatability test every time, that's why we only have one science. Everything else is just mythology.

But all of that is just semantics really. It's academic. None of it brings the victims back. 

But it can stop it from happening again.

You see, the people who call "tolerance!" and the unconditional support that #IllRideWithYou offers, are making things worse. They don't mean to, and I know it. They mean well. They are being positive. But that blind acceptance of Islam is illogical.

More specifically, blind acceptance of anything is illogical.

The LGBTQI+ communities, and those of us who support them, have been campaigning for marriage equality rights in Australia for years. Many of those who said #IllRideWithYou support this campaign too. And while it's noble to offer support to a community of people who perceive being a homosexual as not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God; is it right?

I'm old enough to remember the protests against apartheid in South Africa. Protests against disgusting and discriminatory views against people were not only absolutely deserving of equality, but who were in fact indigenous to the nation (Sound upsettingly (again, not a word) familiar?)

We didn't support South Africa. We actively boycotted and sanctioned and shamed them until they saw reason. We didn't offer to ride with them. Not at least, until they adjusted their disgusting and hurtful behaviour. And they did.

So why exactly do people who are pro Gay marriage think it's positive to support members of a religion that actively not only persecutes gay people, but imprisons or kills them? Why aren't we having a national dialogue that starts with "If you want our support, it's a two-way street"?

And how many success stories came from that hashtag? *facepalm*

Did it occur to all of the privileged white Aussie girls with their imported makeup and thigh tattoo-revealing H&M skirts that most Muslim women wouldn't want to be seen dead with them? That the way they dress and flaunt themselves is an affront to Muslim decency? That the person who started the hashtag wasn't even sure about the actual factual circumstances around which she started it, that no one consulted the Muslim community, and that it's fucking insulting to think skinny white girls from Brisbane are somehow superior to Muslim women from Western Sydney, who need 'rescuing' by members of a culture they don't naturally associate with?

People are calling me a racist right now- an Islamophobe. Islam isn't a race. And I'm phobic of every single religion and toxic ideology on this planet. It's 2014, religion isn't needed any more- we have science now. We have logic (not that the 3/4's of the population of the world who actively ascribe to a religion reflects that).

But I'm not trying to hate on Islam here. Islam is irrelevant to me, just like all religion. I want facts, not invisible friends and sky fairies. I'm trying to point out the dangers inherent in painting fine art with a paint roller.

Monis was an asylum seeker. He was granted residency here, and he repaid that by sexually assaulting tens of women, and killing two. He also killed a man.

What does that tell you?

It tells me that all of the people bleating on about how Australia needs to just open the gates to asylum seekers are illogical, and dangerous.

But as I tried to illustrate in the fifth paragraph- it's not just black and white. 

This fact doesn't therefore excuse Abbott and Morrison's brutal war on asylum seekers. There is a balance, and we as a nation need to find it. We need to find the balance between screening potential threats to the country like Monis, and at the same time treating asylum seekers with dignity, respect, and compassion. That's who we are as a country. Those are qualities we have.

We need to stand up to Islam and say "(Some of) your collective attitudes have no place in this country, and we will only stand beside you when you take responsibility for those attitudes." We also need to implement their Islamic banking system tomorrow, because it's awesome.

We need to stop being so scared and conditioned to not speak out against Islam for fear of having fingers pointed at us by people who accuse of us being hateful. I'm sure the Catholic Church accused Nicolaus Copernicus of the same thing, but how wrong were they?

The movement of blind acceptance is so strong in this country. The majority of people here have never seen a war or truly suffered as a consequence of religion. Empathy is in overdrive, and the sheep are so quick to jump on the support bandwagon, without ever asking the hard questions, or saying the hard statements.

Islam needs to change if it is to ever be respected in Australia. In short, it needs to stop being Islam. The Catholic Church needs to stop raping young boys and covering it up, also- to stop being Catholic. And people without religion need to do exactly the same thing- the right thing, within our shared societal contract.

If you accept every Muslim, poisonous ideologues like Monis will kill your countrymen or families. There are people just like Monis out there right now, who have slipped through the cracks- and blind empaths are out there too, riding with them. To be clear, there aren't a lot, but any number higher than one is enough to make this whole nation mourn. If you accept every conservative right-winger, poisonous ideologues among them will also kill people in the community. Blind acceptance isn't a virtue.

Not all Muslims are hardline, but they are, by definition, anti qualities of acceptance that the majority of Australian's hold dear. If they want acceptance- give acceptance. It's their turn. 

The problem is, Islam can't change. It can't be progressive. It can't lose the bad parts and ramp up the good. Because it's set- the laws are already written. The only way Muslims can change in a way that is acceptable and in line with modern thinking, is to stop being Muslim.

Not going to happen.

And if we were allowed to throw poison-spewing Australian citizens in jail or to deport them, talkback radio would cease to exist.

So what can we do? 

Think about your position on matters. Educate yourself. Look at both sides of each story and ask yourself where the ethical position lies. Don't just hashtag a MEME on Instagram then go to Stereosonic or Summadayze and get hammered and high.

The number of thoughtless people in this country is staggering. The herd mentality is terrifying, but ubiquitous. So many people think they are moral but only act from self interest. We as a culture have massive problems relating to our own attitudes. 

Maybe it's easier to call someone an Islamophobe than it is to look inside and see the gaps in our own logic.

Stop making excuses for things and indignantly shouting down anyone who you think is being negative- it's not all fluffy puppy land out there. Confront it, and only then you can change it...

Otherwise, nothing changes (just like with the swinging voters who voted in Abbott). And you will only have yourselves to blame.