Talk

Advanced search

Maybelline's new cover man. I'm conflicted, come chat!

(26 Posts)
Aliasnumberone Fri 06-Jan-17 14:10:34

http://www.allure.com/story/manny-gutierrez-first-male-maybelline-new-york-spokesperson?mbid=social_facebook

Not sure if that link will work let me know if not.

Basically maybelline have a new spokesperson who is a male beauty blogger called Manny Guitierrez.

On one hand I think it's great that they have a man who is simply that, a man, who loves makeup and wearing it. It defies the socially constructed gender stereotypes that so many are using to define and judge women

But on the other hand it irritates me that rather than women being applauded for choosing positively not to wear make up and shrug off the expected performance of femininity men are being applauded for buying into it. Do rather than breaking down the misogyny of 'beauty' by lessening its prevalence in society it's being promoted to a wider audience. I know it's a company who operate and exist it make money so they have no motive to applaud women for not wearing make up but just feels like by 'breaking gender stereotypes' they're reinforcing capitalism which is essentially patriarchal and therefore it's one step forward two back? They're attempting to increase their market base and make more people slaves to the beauty industry.

For disclosure, I subscribe to radical feminism and prefer to look at things from a class analysis rather than liberal individual choice perspective which is where my conflict comes from in regards to this.

ElspethFlashman Fri 06-Jan-17 14:14:27

Wait, is that Manny MUA?

Oh he's got kinda a bad reputation. He can be pretty toxic. That would turn me off alone.

(He is a good poster child for selling make up though as it really suits his face and he does look stunning sometimes)

Aliasnumberone Fri 06-Jan-17 14:15:41

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.allure.com/story/manny-gutierrez-first-male-maybelline-new-york-spokesperson/amp?client=safari

bearfishdoodle Fri 06-Jan-17 14:21:45

I'm relieved they are using a man tbh. No reason why men can't wear makeup (or anything else) and expand the bandwidth of being of the male sex wink rather than prettiness being the sole preserve and responsibility of women.

Aliasnumberone Fri 06-Jan-17 14:22:55

Elspeth I'm not familiar with him so can't comment on whether he's particularly toxic or not. It just struck me that although on the surface it might seem progressive to have a man, and not a transwoman like MAC their Jenner collaboration which just reinforces the performance of femininity imo.

bearfishdoodle Fri 06-Jan-17 14:22:57

Or not, as the case may be. People can wear makeup if they want; or not. Men have worn makeup at various times throughout history, no big deal.

TheSparrowhawk Fri 06-Jan-17 14:26:44

My initial reaction is that it's a positive thing, because it illustrates the fact that make up is just paint you put on your face, it's not something essential for women or embarrassing for men. There isn't anything wrong with make up, it can be fun. The problem comes when women feel required to wear it and ridiculed for not wearing it. If men wear it it loses less of its hold IMO. I am open to arguments about the subtler implications though, which I might not be seeing.

VikingVolva Fri 06-Jan-17 14:28:22

They're not trying to promote social change, break stereotype or champion anything.

They're trying to flog their brand of make up. It's not reinforcing capitalism. It simply is capitalism.

If this particular ad campaign is getting them talked about, and the brand mentioned and 'known' it'll be good for sales.

TheSparrowhawk Fri 06-Jan-17 14:28:26

sorry loses some of its hold

Aliasnumberone Fri 06-Jan-17 14:28:44

Bearfish on one level I totally agree with you but then I have this niggling voice that says no one should have to concern themselves with prettiness at all. Prettiness doesn't empower anyone, it's a distraction. It diverts energy away from other pursuits. We shouldn't have to worry about appearing pretty, and use our time to glaze over our imperfections. Part of the issue with a consumer society is that we're constantly being fed this line that were not good enough and need to spend time becoming more 'perfect' and that that notion of perfect comes from the male gaze.

KickAssAngel Fri 06-Jan-17 14:31:12

Well, I think the issue is that there's a clash between gender issues and class issues. Capitalism is one big pyramid scheme, that relies on making people spend money to succeed. Therefore companies have to use any means they can to create a market (because if we grew up in a world without make up at all, no-one would wake up and think "I'll invent mascara").

So - yes, they'll do anything to get some attention and expand their market.

This is potentially good for feminism because it means that a man is being treated like a woman, and therefore an example of gender equality. (Although there's a whole load of stuff about male appropriation of female stereotypes, and how it's still perpetuating the idea that women need to look a certain way, more so now because men are invading their territory.)

But, bad for class structure, because it's a way to encourage yet more people to buy into consumerism and support the capitalist economy.

You just have to decide whether your 'yay' for gender equality is bigger or less than the 'yuk' for consumerism.

TheSparrowhawk Fri 06-Jan-17 14:34:30

I agree to an extent Alias but at the same time I think it's a human thing to pursue beauty.

deydododatdodontdeydo Fri 06-Jan-17 14:34:31

Yep, you said it in your opening post.
Make up company execs aren't sitting around in board rooms thinking up ways of getting women to wear less make up!
They're thinking of ways of expanding the market - selling to men will increase their profits.
What motive would they have to discourage women from buying make up?

TheSparrowhawk Fri 06-Jan-17 14:37:42

I agree that it's a way to increase profits. But a side effect of it is to, cross a line between men and women that would never have been crossed even 10 years ago.

VikingVolva Fri 06-Jan-17 14:45:04

The line was crossed in the 1980s!

I know there is (PR generated) editorial saying this is all new, and to the younger audience it will be. But it's not actually a real innovation.

Just one of the circularities of fashion (something the industry encourages to keep people buying).

deydododatdodontdeydo Fri 06-Jan-17 14:45:11

I agree Sparrowhawk that if it moves opinion away from "make up is stuff women wear" to "make up stuff people wear" that's a good thing.
Like the huge increase in male grooming has done something similar (although by increasing consumerism for men).

TheSparrowhawk Fri 06-Jan-17 14:48:47

Wasn't the make up men wore in the 1980s more about dressing up and putting on a persona though Volva? I was thinking this is more of a crossing of a line into making make up a normal everyday thing for men, not to put on a show but just in the same way women use it.

VikingVolva Fri 06-Jan-17 15:02:06

In the 1980s, putting on a show was exactly what make up was for and how it was worn, day to day (actually, hasn't it been that way always, just the nature of the 'show' changing?)

Make up then was part of the ordinary, daily style of several 'tribes'. Fashion has changed, and it (mainly) dropped out for long enough for there to be a claim of novelty - and it is that novelty which drives people to buy more (plus of course regular discontinuations)

(The ads I was thinking of were for Boots No 17 btw, hardly a 'shock' company. I'm pretty sure there were others, especially in the New Romantic years)

LassWiTheDelicateAir Fri 06-Jan-17 15:08:46

It's a brilliant advert. There are so many points in the OP's opening comment and follow on posts I'd like to pick up on but it'd take ages and as OP and I are so miles apart on just about everything she has said, would be pointless.

However as Maybelline are not cruelty free I don't and won't buy their products.

TheSparrowhawk Fri 06-Jan-17 15:16:09

I get what you're saying Volva. I was little in the 80s so I wasn't aware of it on a personal level.

OneFlewOverTheDodosNest Fri 06-Jan-17 15:18:30

I think this is a capitalist thing, rather than a feminist thing and I can't personally think of a way that women are either harmed or benefitted by men wearing make up. From Maybelline's perspective it seems like a nifty way to enlarge a market. Definitely don't agree that's a day time look though!

KickAssAngel Fri 06-Jan-17 16:22:45

A day time look for Adam Ant

LassWiTheDelicateAir Fri 06-Jan-17 16:28:59

I've just stumbled across Patrick Starr. He is gay and describes himself as a boy who likes make up.

Realistically very few , if any, people are going to follow the instructions in his video as an everyday routine but I can see the artistry in it . If he enjoys it, then so what? It's not really anyone else's business.

youtu.be/yiq3M5d5T_A

joangray38 Fri 06-Jan-17 16:32:12

I follow a fewbof the mua gossip forums. Yes it'd great they chose a man , but he is known to bully people on Twitter , has called people ugly in the past (Gerard cosmetics scandal), has become increasingly obnoxious since becoming friends with jefree Starr, is misognyistic and his makeup application is crap.

Lottapianos Fri 06-Jan-17 16:36:27

Oh dear. I had never heard of him before but thought it was a great thing that they were using a man who likes make up to promote the brand. However if the toxic and misogynist allegations are true, I'll be changing my mind

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