Anyone else finding the BearFaced campaign deeply depressing?

(41 Posts)
tweetytwitcher Mon 05-Nov-12 11:02:57

Specifically the way that it treats the concept of an un-made-up woman as so unusual, almost like a freak-show. Something outrageous that you do to raise money, while at the same time the women involved blather on about empowerment.

EmpressOfTheSevenRomanCandles Mon 05-Nov-12 11:06:02

Ridiculous.

I haven't worn makeup for about 20 years - maybe I should backdate my sponsorship?

tweetytwitcher Mon 05-Nov-12 11:09:26

Exactly. If it's so special I want a medal every bloody morning. Except I don't, I don't want anyone to look at me or anyone else and think 'ooooh she's not wearing make up'. Either in a positive or negative way. I want to it to be utterly unremarkable.

Trills Mon 05-Nov-12 11:11:46

It encourages people to confuse "bare" and "bear".

EmpressOfTheSevenRomanCandles Mon 05-Nov-12 11:20:46

Yes. Apparently the "Bear" part is about wanting women to wear paw marks on their faces. Not about them looking like bears without makeup, oh no...

What a load of bollocks.

summerflower Mon 05-Nov-12 11:29:01

Agree, it is ridiculous on so many levels. Not least because the model on the BBC webpage for this (which I have just looked at) clearly has make up on and also looks airbrushed.

maybenow Mon 05-Nov-12 11:32:40

ahahahahahahahahah - hahahahaha - sorry, i can't quite get over how ridiculous it would be if i asked people to sponsor me to not wear make up..... hahahahaha.......

i can't even get people to sponsor me to run anything less than a full marathon because they know i run for fun anyway...

Alameda Mon 05-Nov-12 11:32:41

what is it? I never wear make up but don't look anything like as nice as a bear sad

EmpressOfTheSevenRomanCandles Mon 05-Nov-12 11:36:26

Children In Need, Alameda. Apparently women not wearing make up is SO radical that it deserves to be sponsored. I'm going to go tweet about it.

UptoapointLordCopper Mon 05-Nov-12 11:37:16

Another one here who thinks this is bollocks. So depressing. angry

Alameda Mon 05-Nov-12 11:41:45

!

I'm confused, what is mascara and highlighter if not make-up?

Friday the 9th I'm off work, you'd have to sponsor me TO wear make up for me to even consider it that day. Same goes for getting dressed! grin

Alameda Mon 05-Nov-12 11:48:15

mascara and lip balm = huge personal effort, rarely undertaken

EmpressOfTheSevenRomanCandles Mon 05-Nov-12 11:49:03

There's plenty of pro tweets on Twitter about it with #bearfaced. Let's balance things a bit.

DioneTheDiabolist Mon 05-Nov-12 11:52:04

I like it. Let's face it, the only women worth sponsoring will be those who wear loads of make up. Why not get them to try a day without and raise some money for charity at the same time?

Alameda Mon 05-Nov-12 11:56:19

I don't get it though? Who wears that much makeup in real life anyway?

UptoapointLordCopper Mon 05-Nov-12 11:57:05

Not me. In fact I'm increasingly thinking that this real life business is overrated.

DioneTheDiabolist Mon 05-Nov-12 12:00:08

Loads of women wear tonnes of slap. I have worked with quite a few. Thing is, after very little time in my company they tend not to bother.

Dione the Diabolist: looking like a homeless person since 1993.grin

Alameda Mon 05-Nov-12 12:01:40

I might, if it didn't make me look like a man in drag?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Mon 05-Nov-12 12:13:49

I will also not be wearing a peacock costume, eating a live aardvark or cooking over a candle on Friday. Same old, same old.

You all owe me £1 for each of the above, though.

EmpressOfTheSevenRomanCandles Mon 05-Nov-12 12:16:22

It's the implication that not wearing makeup is somehow radically against the norm that bothers me. And I know that for plenty of women wearing makeup is the norm, but that's not the point - they're equally valid choices.

PickledFanjoCat Mon 05-Nov-12 12:19:33

It's daft. I don't know hardly anyone who wears make up regularly I wear it about two or three times a year.

I should volunteer to wear make up for charity.

EmpressOfTheSevenRomanCandles Mon 05-Nov-12 12:24:16

Maybe they should just be getting women to buy & wear their fake pawprint tattoos & make the money from that.

LaundryFairy Mon 05-Nov-12 12:27:43

Whole thing seems ludicrous to me - like it is meant to bean an act of heroic bravery for a woman to go out in public without makeup! Aren't there other, more useful things that we could be sponsoring people to do?

Anniegetyourgun Mon 05-Nov-12 13:16:40

Snatch, you've got it on its head. We don't owe you because you're not wearing a peacock costume; you owe CiN for the privilege of being seen in public not wearing one. Er, I think.

Someone would have to pay me to go to the trouble of putting make-up on. I do it for job interviews and probably would if ever invited to the Queen's garden party, but that's about it. They'd get short shrift if they tried to charge me for not wearing it. Like the people did who wanted to charge me for wearing my own jeans on a Friday, like I did every Friday anyway.

Here's a radical idea. Why don't they try sponsoring people to do something useful?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now