Racism in cosmetics company ads/products?

[lafemmenoir]

I find it interesting how it's ok for companies that don't cater to WoC to be seen as racist, but if someone turns it around and points out that a company catering only for WoC is technically guilty of the same thing then that person is told that's not the case.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander, really.

I don't know about goose or whatever, but if you read the REASON why I deduced there are companies who, once again, started creating cosmetics lines for women of colour, it was because models found it hard to find makeup artists who had shades DARK ENOUGH for their skin tones (You can find that out by doing some research, I gave you the name of one Iman as an example). Therefore, there was a demand/need for someone to do so. Furthermore, many so called "african-american" lines or brands of cosmetics are actually owned by non black corporations.
So, following your logic, the lines for darker women should include cosmetics for lighter women too? On a business standpoint, why do so if that market is already there? I would not be offended if someone began a line for very fair women. My grandmother is white enough that her veins can be seen on her face, so it's not about race it's about demand.
I fail to see your point.

 

[mizzbeba]

OOh, I loved taking Anthropology and Sociology courses in undergrad! Girlfriend, go to the University's library and check out the research journals. If you start searching for "racism in advertising" I'm sure you'll get some worthy material for your paper.

If I were in your shoes I'd look for information on how our society defines beauty and how advertising expands on that 'definition' . Ex. Blacks are represented in 7% of magazine ads even though Blacks represent 14% of the US population (don't quote me on those stats though!). So there is an under-representation in magazine ads.

If you still have some more courses to knock out of the way may I recommend taking a psychology of women course. There is soooo much to learn in anthropology, psychology and sociology courses.

Good luck!!

 

[FullWroth]

Another thing that's been briefly touched on in this thread is, don't be quick to equate the desire to be whiter/fairer with racism, because historically, it's been very specifically classism, which is a different beast altogether.

It was a matter of finding a good prospective spouse. A rich woman would be paler than a poor woman, because the poor woman would be under the sun working all day while the rich woman would probably be kept inside to do leisure activities or upper-class woman's work (i.e. embroidery, music lessons). If you got yourself a really pale girl, it probably meant you got an awesome catch financially, and that would bring lots of money into your family; everyone would be better off for it, so everyone wanted the really pale girls because of what that paleness represented in a practical, everyday situation, not because they liked the paleness of the skin on its own merit.

You can even see references to this in the Bible - in the Song of Solomon, the singer states:

1. I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.
2. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

Now, if you can look past all the innuendo there (ahem, keeping your, uh, womanly vineyard), the singer points humbly out that she's pretty *despite* being "black" (aka tanned by the sun) because she was forced to work outdoors.

So, outdated and culturally irrelevant? Absolutely. Classist? Fersure. But racist? Not so much.

 

[sharkbytes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlarmAgent This is a feeling that has been expressed a few times in this thread, and I find it very surprising. I have a very hard time finding foundation shades light enough to match me, but that doesn't make me a "race" to be discriminated against. It makes me a white person who is particularly white. Darker skinned women are generally of a certain "race", whether it be African descended, Indian descended, or some regions of Asia. Us pale types are not representative of our race. Most Caucasians are in that 'medium' range that is so popular as a foundation shade. Pale women are not a race, not in the slightest, not even close; so not catering to us does NOT make a company racist. Really, I think when white people start considering themselves some sort of downtrodden group on the same level as our actual minorities, you really start edging into dangerous territory. A company that refuses to make a shade white enough to match you (the outlier Caucasian super-pale girl) being considered racist is laughable; a company that refuses to make a shade dark enough to match the average African-American is very... uncool.

I edited the quote down a bit to the part I'd like to respond to, so as not to take up too much room.

I can't tell you how many times I've been rudely told by makeup artists and boutique owners that I really ought to get a tan, and that my skin "needs some color." Can you imagine saying to someone with darker skin, "wow you really need to lighten your skin tone"? It's absolutely ridiculous either way! Even at the beach, when I'm wearing a sun hat and using an umbrella, some jerk will point out that I should try to get a bit of color. Making hurtful remarks like that based on the color (or lack thereof) of someone's skin is really how racism (or whatever term you want to use) takes root.

Don't get me wrong; that stuff is NOTHING compared to how badly people of other skin tones have been treated, and I am in no way equating some silly comments to hardline racism and discrimination. I just think it's annoying that some people feel the need to make disparaging comments about pale skin, and yet it isn't considered "racist" because white women come from varying backgrounds. It's wrong to say things about *anyone's* skin color, no matter the shade.


That said, I agree that there is a disparity in how people are portrayed in beauty ads, television, and other forms of visual media. As annoying as it is to buy foundation, I don't think it's racist for companies to cater to certain skin tones. It's just a matter of what sells, and for whom they market the products.

 

[Beauty Mark]

Quote:

Don't get me wrong; that stuff is NOTHING compared to how badly people of other skin tones have been treated, and I am in no way equating some silly comments to hardline racism and discrimination. I just think it's annoying that some people feel the need to make disparaging comments about pale skin, and yet it isn't considered "racist" because white women come from varying backgrounds. It's wrong to say things about *anyone's* skin color, no matter the shade.

Skin color isn't the only delineator of race; I do agree it's wrong to make comments about someone's skin color, but to be considered "white" you can extremely pale to probably close to my skintone. There probably isn't a word in the English language, but discriminating against someone for being paler than whatever the palest foundation is isn't racist. If it were racial discrimination, people would be prejudiced against anyone who falls under being "white" or is perceived to be "white."

The sad thing is, there are some people who are prejudiced against white people, like someone believing that a white makeup artist cannot know how to match foundation on anyone but other white people.

 

[SparklingWaves]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullWroth Another thing that's been briefly touched on in this thread is, don't be quick to equate the desire to be whiter/fairer with racism, because historically, it's been very specifically classism, which is a different beast altogether. It was a matter of finding a good prospective spouse. A rich woman would be paler than a poor woman, because the poor woman would be under the sun working all day while the rich woman would probably be kept inside to do leisure activities or upper-class woman's work (i.e. embroidery, music lessons). If you got yourself a really pale girl, it probably meant you got an awesome catch financially, and that would bring lots of money into your family; everyone would be better off for it, so everyone wanted the really pale girls because of what that paleness represented in a practical, everyday situation, not because they liked the paleness of the skin on its own merit. You can even see references to this in the Bible - in the Song of Solomon, the singer states: I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept. Now, if you can look past all the innuendo there (ahem, keeping your, uh, womanly vineyard), the singer points humbly out that she's pretty *despite* being "black" (aka tanned by the sun) because she was forced to work outdoors. So, outdated and culturally irrelevant? Absolutely. Classist? Fersure. But racist? Not so much.

I just wanted your opinion on this. How do you think the context in bold would be judged today?

"It was the Spaniards who gave the world the notion that an aristocrat's blood is not red but blue. The Spanish nobility started taking shape around the ninth century in classic military fashion, occupying land as warriors on horseback. They were to continue the process for more than five hundred years, clawing back sections of the peninsula from its Moorish occupiers, and a nobleman demonstrated his pedigree by holding up his sword arm to display the filigree of blue-blooded veins beneath his pale skin—proof that his birth had not been contaminated by the dark-skinned enemy." (Robert Lacey, Aristocrats. Little, Brown and Company, 1983, p. 67)

 

[redambition]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lafemmenoir I don't know about goose or whatever, but if you read the REASON why I deduced there are companies who, once again, started creating cosmetics lines for women of colour, it was because models found it hard to find makeup artists who had shades DARK ENOUGH for their skin tones (You can find that out by doing some research, I gave you the name of one Iman as an example). Therefore, there was a demand/need for someone to do so. Furthermore, many so called "african-american" lines or brands of cosmetics are actually owned by non black corporations. So, following your logic, the lines for darker women should include cosmetics for lighter women too? On a business standpoint, why do so if that market is already there? I would not be offended if someone began a line for very fair women. My grandmother is white enough that her veins can be seen on her face, so it's not about race it's about demand. I fail to see your point.

my post did go on to say that i don't personally consider that sort of thing racism, but niche marketing. i was merely pointing out that colour discrimination can go both ways in the beauty industry.