So What’s Different?

Posted by Cyn | Filed under Feminism, Links

I saw the top­ic and thought, “Gosh, maybe I’ve missed some­thing obvi­ous. I’ve nev­er been so good at this Girly-Girl thing. I should watch that.”

I watched it. I don’t feel enlight­ened.

Maybe it’s just been too long since I thought about this stuff, but what’s so dif­fer­ent about apply­ing make-up for 40-year-olds than it is for 20-year-olds? I get that people’s skin type might change, but that’s an indi­vid­ual thing. Where did this “no mas­cara on the bot­tom lash­es” thing come from, and why?

Maybe some­one who reads women’s mag­a­zines or watch­es TV can give me a clue here.

(Yep, this is a very shal­low entry.)

Tags:

Permalink | February 1st, 2008

3 Responses to “So What’s Different?”

  1. Laura Ross Says:
    February 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Ha! Her foun­da­tion is dark­er than the skin on her neck!

    I wear mas­cara, but only on my low­er lash­es, because I’m a lon­er, Dot­tie! A rebel!

  2. cyn Says:
    February 2nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed the col­or dif­fer­ence. It’s one of the things that dri­ves me nuts. Of course, I have such pale skin that I’m in dan­ger of burn­ing if I leave the fridge door open too long, so it’s also some­thing I have to be real­ly care­ful of when I wear make­up. Hav­ing goth styles in fash­ion is good for me. “Yes, I need the ‘dead’ shade, please. No, not fresh­ly dead, more like a week dead. There we go!”

  3. ldegoth Says:
    March 27th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

    (i agree with cyn..i also have the death shade of pale)
    the rea­son­ing behind the no mas­cara on low­er lash­es, is as we age, the cir­cles under our eyes get worse(ain’t that a thing to look for­ward to?) and the dark­ness of the mas­cara will make the cir­cles look dark­er.
    same with dark eye­lin­er. i’ve *sigh* recent­ly switched from my clas­sic kohl black to a brown. i’m not lik­ing this aging thing.
    lde