Going 'no makeup'

[LadyBlaBlah]

I know it's trivial and as feminists must think only of FGM however I'm getting fed up with the time, cost, effort and most of all the reasons why I wear make up.

I've been wearing it blindly since about aged 14 so it will weirdly be a big change, and my small act of rebellion against the p.

Anyone else a no makeup person?

Interesting thread. I've gone the other way, never used to wear it at all except for special occasions. Then about 5 or 6 years ago I lost the vast majority of my eyebrow hair to alopecia. I'm very dark haired with pale skin so that looks very odd indeed. So, eyebrow pens etc became part of my daily routine, and I have them down to a fine art. And if I'm going to sit down and do them I tend to start adding a bit more make-up if I have time, which I usually do now the DCs are older. I like doing it, the more often I do it the easier it gets - I used to worry that when I only did it occasionally I would make a real ham-fisted job of it, now I know I can do a decent ob in 5 mins reliably. And I feel better dressed with it. I will go out without any sometimes (apart from the essential eyebrow pencil), but I choose to wear it most days now and I feel far less self conscious in it than I used to do. I keep it pretty natural. I'm sure I will have spells of not bothering again.

On the one I think that is key, that you are doing it because you want to, not because everyone else is and you have to live up to that. However I am conscious of the fact that the bar seems to be gradually getting raised with grooming generally, nails being an obvious example, beautifully manicured nails in every colour of the rainbow are more the norm than the exception round here, which puts a little pressure on those that don't IMO, I do my nails far more often than I used to as well. I would say that I am at heart a no make-up person (I very rarely wear it on holiday for example, as it feels good to leave it behind as with other day to day things), so I often think how beautiful women with no (apparent) make-up look and admire them for not falling for the societal pressures.

We all know you don't care to examine these things, Still, and that you claim to have better things to do. And yet you're on every thread, repeatedly saying so, so you clearly don't have that many better things to do

I don't understand people who wear 'eccentric' clothes. Helena Bonham-Carter. What, in the name of Jeremy Clarkson's pea brain, is that all about??

Because she wants to wear them? And likes them? What's hard to understand about that...

This has possibly been discussed upthread with the beard thing - but is there a line between the pressure to be "well put together" so you satisfy cultural standards/prejudices of what it means to look like an attractive woman, and the pressure to be "well put together" so you satisfy cultural standards/prejudices of what it means to look like a reliable or professional person? (Are either of them reasonable?)

V interesting thread.

I too am non-Amish and was simply never all that interested in make-up. I still have the bit of kajal eye liner a friend gave me when we were 16 (I am now 48) - I don't actually use it but it's in the bottom of my toiletry bag as a token of my misspent yoof.
I just never liked the feel or smell of make-up, foundation makes me shudder. I have now lived make-up free long enough to find my face very strange when I catch sight of myself with slap on (yes, I do conform for special occasions such as my brother's wedding some 8 years ago).

The 'professional' or 'polished' argument bothers me: as the slightly frustrated owner of rather frizzy and difficult to tame hair, I at times have 'put together' hair envy. I am no less professional than my sleek-haired (or male) colleagues. Should I feel less professional because my hair escapes from all attempts to tame it?! It's clean and brushed and out of my face and even smells nice (not that that should matter at work). How does that affect my professionalism? But there seems to be that perception...

Hmm.

Today, I have been wearing trousers which are patterned with bright pink, bright red and purple. I get bored with grey/black/navy - and I wear quite a lot of red in particular, but other colours too, though usually more as a top than trousers.

They are noticeable, I admit - one colleague said they're great and should get award points (there's a recognition scheme for if you do a really good piece of work.) Another colleague commented on normal work attire, and he clearly considered these trousers as not part of normal work attire.

We tend not to wear formal work clothes unless we're meeting customers, and in my department and the nearby departments, that's a rare occurrence, so you see everything from jeans to suits. I really hadn't considered that these trousers might be seen as unsuitable in that context, yet he implied they were. I've worn plain red trousers quite often, so it's not a very radical departure for me. In fact, I think I've worm at least one red item every day this month - trousers or top, shoes, earrings, and tomorrow will be a red dress.

Now I am wondering that part of my choice not to wear makeup is because I don't really get what people's expectations and unspoken "rules" are. (Most of it is because as a teenager, I swam a lot, and I couldn't see the point of time-consuming regimes like make-up or fancy hair-dos if I was having to remove/reapply/sort it out at least twice a day, if not more.)

Oh gawd, yes, swimming!
That ruined any make-up ambitions I might have developed as a teenager too
Started me shaving my legs though because it made you faster….

Hmm. I wonder if it's questionable whether there is a line at which gendered expectations of women 'looking pretty' ticks over to non-gendered expectations of people looking professional - because of course what it means to 'look professional' in different jobs varies between men and women. There was an exchange of articles in, I think, the Guardian, which ran an article on 'academic clothing' and seemed to consist of mutterings about tweed and ties. They then ran a piece by a female academic pointing out that, shock horror, women can be academics too, and female academics are scrutinised far more closely when it comes to clothing. I hate dressing for conferences because it's such a bally minefield - a woman in a suit is 'coded' in a much less neutral way than a man in one, but I've also been deeply averse to going even remotely 'pretty' after a post-doc at a dinner told me he liked it when women presenting papers dressed attractively as it was easier to pay attention to them.

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/21/why-do-academics-dress-so-badly

www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/oct/26/-sp-female-academics-dont-power-dress-forget-heels-and-no-flowing-hair-allowed

Is the "professional" thing perhaps a way for people who DO have gendered expectations of women's dress to excuse themselves by saying "oh, no, we just think that AS A PERSON you have to look smart" ?

Apologies, I know I'm chasing my own tail and diverging from the original topic of the thread. It's just that when I start thinking about this too hard I get to wondering if there are any free choices that aren't implicated by gendered expectations at all... (wanders off down the rabbit hole of free will and determinism).

I doubt there are many, if any, choices we make which aren't affected by socialisation.

Interesting articles hovis. I remember a conversation between with two professors - they were thinking whether they should find the shortest prettiest dresses they have in their wardrobe and wear them to work just to prove a point.

I wear very short skirts to speak at lectures sometimes.

(Ha! Got you there. Did you think the professors were men? I had to refrain from writing female professors. Everything defaults to the male, doesn't it?)

impossible to say whether they were male or female without you indicating lordc - i'm sure there are male professors with short pretty dresses in their wardrobes too!

Undoubtedly, chopper.

Hovis the few times I've dressed for others it has been in an academic setting. For me it meant more traditional and gender neutral (I'm usually slightly retro/rock/kitsch - I wear work wear but it's often vintage style or black/gothy).
A retro/rock man is code for "in touch" with young people and accessible.
But I felt my usual clothing made people male academics on their home turf think I was illogical and "weird". I once got asked if I was there to talk about hairdressing studies by a man as a woman by his side internalised guffawed. I pointed out we were looking into raising potential income for non - academic teenagers through school so a combination of hairdressing and business skills might be an ideal package to trial and monitor for both boys and girls over the next 5 years, as it is a significant sector in terms of small business ownership and has lower failure rates than some others.

But then next time I wore a tweed trouser suit. Vintage yes. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't wear it to look tweedy and "clever" less feminine I'm ashamed to say.

... I work with universities not in them. So already on a back foot as it's often assumed I have no academic background, or why would I have jumped out of the ivory tower?

Again, gender-neutral clothes = men's clothes?

No. A vintage, woman's suit. But with no gendered colours (ie no.pink/red or blue).

At work (in a hospital) I have the choice of wearing a tunic & trousers or a dress.

I wear the tunic & trousers for reasons of practicality & comfort, but I must confess that I still try to look good by buying my own slim cut trousers rather than wearing the loose uniform trousers!

But... I don't think it's the 'patriarchy' making me do that - some of the male nurses / HCAs like to try & look good too by wearing gold jewellery or by having fashionable short hairstyles and aftershave..

I'm sure there is some "evolutionary psychology" going on to (common enemy to feminism, wrongly in my opinion).

We are social creatures. We like to identify with each other in groups. We like a certain amount of individuality but also conformism. Fashion is built on this isn't it?

We are also "gene vessels". We look to "select" other genes to combine with. We judge relative health of gene "choices" in part through appearance, but only because appearance is an indicator of health and ability, not for appearance itself. For example, facial symmetry (underpinning classic "beauty"), it is believed, was for eons taken as a proxy to "gene health" and "resistance to disease" along with "likelihood to attract for redproduction".

These theories mean that, even with our ability to intellectually rationalise ourselves in the abstract, we are still "driven" to fashion and beauty.

The fact that a strong patriarchy has layered on what constitutes beauty and conformity is an additive, but separate issue.

I still think skinny models in skimpy outfits in adverts on buses is the wrong direction to be going. The more backlash and balance there is against this the better, in my view.

To be honest I do feel more 'comfortable' in tunic & trousers instead of a dress because the male patients & doctors don't try to look at my legs etc like they do with some of the female employees who wear dresses.

Ha! Got you there. Did you think the professors were men? I had to refrain from writing female professors. Everything defaults to the male, doesn't it?)

What an odd thing to say. No it doesn't. Who hears "professor" and assimes it's a man?

...Quite a lot of men do. On MN, not so much. But in the real world. .. yep.

I was talking about the real world.

in the real world plenty of people assume professors are men. just because you don't, doesn't mean others aren't full of sexist assumptions.