White women try to "reclaim power" through #vanillagirl and #cleangirl beauty posts??

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is remarkable that we made it this far without anyone acknowledging the various white power movements involved in, say, the attempt to overthrow the 2020 Presidential election results. This is real, they are active and dangerous, and white people who do not do much to distinguish themselves from those folks should expect some unpleasant criticism at a minimum. Openly calling oneself a “vanilla girl” in that context is not a neutral act.


Ma’am, this is a thread about skincare and nails.


The title is "White women try to 'reclaim power' through #vanillagirl and #cleangirl beauty posts." It's not a thread about skincare and nails; it's a thread about white women "reclaiming power."

The question is: what "power" is this that white women are "reclaiming?"


Don't you know we run the world? It's why we're so tired.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I can't be bothered to look up whoever this "Steffi Cao" nitwit is. The foolishness this country seems to be diving headfirst into is very depressing. I hope the pendulum swings back to common sense sooner rather than later.


I do hope we get some common sense soon but the problem with allowing a swinging pendulum to rule pur society is that it never pauses on common sense. Common sense would be the middle and it would have to stop swinging to hold there.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:My favorite thing about all these "discussions" is how they try to make everything about race (and we are still demonizing white women 99% of the time) while completely ignoring the rampant misogyny. It's insane.


My favorite thing about it is how white men will jump ALL over the conversation because they are thrilled at the opportunity to talk about how terrible white women are and how we're just manipulative and cruel and how ACTUALLY white supremacy is mostly our fault. They love it!. No one has ever enjoyed calling a middle aged, middle class white mother a "Karen" more than a white guy. He gets to act out all his misogynist thoughts and mommy issues under the guise of being an ally to black people. It's perfect.
Anonymous
I’m a white woman and I’m not upset about the article at all. I’m not sure I buy it completely but I think there are some valid kernels in there. I certainly don’t feel attacked.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I’m a white woman and I’m not upset about the article at all. I’m not sure I buy it completely but I think there are some valid kernels in there. I certainly don’t feel attacked.


Congrats. What are the valid kernels?

My problem with it is that everything valid in the piece is undermined by the stuff that is hyperbole or just blatantly false. Like, yes, there is a history of white women appropriating black culture and aesthetics for their personal gain (i.e. the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus twerking to shake her Disney image, etc.). And there is a vile history of white women using performative victimhood to provoke violence against black people (Emmett Till and all the awful stories like his, but also more recent examples like the woman in Central Park calling the cops on a black man for looking at birds). Those are valid and valuable criticisms and as a white woman, I think we need to talk about it and be accountable.

But to take those valid criticisms and apply them to young white women posting on social media about the "no make-up makeup" look or how much they enjoy wearing outfits composed of tone on tone beige items? It undermines the whole thing. Because those are not the same. And also, white women are not the only women posting on social media about natural beauty or neutral aesthetics. At all. Plus there's a huge difference between someone like Kim Kardashian or Miley Cyrus or even Amy Cooper (the Central Park lady, who worked in finance and was quite privileged) and just random young white women on social media. Those are women with real power, because they are wealthy and have access to powerful people and opportunities. That's not true of the vast majority of white women. So it just doesn't track to lump all white women in together and argue that a white woman talking about neutral lip gloss on TikTok is trying to enact "violence" on people of color. And it's such a leap that it starts to embrace a lot of misogynist tropes about white women -- that they are manipulative and power hungry, that they are shallow and selfish. Tropes that are often used to justify violence against women, actually.

The article might start out making some fair points, but when it ultimately lands on talking points that would not be out of place in a 4chan article written by incels, or an explanation by Harvey Weinstein as to why his behavior was actually justified, then maybe it's time to take a step back and ask yourself what your are doing and why.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is remarkable that we made it this far without anyone acknowledging the various white power movements involved in, say, the attempt to overthrow the 2020 Presidential election results. This is real, they are active and dangerous, and white people who do not do much to distinguish themselves from those folks should expect some unpleasant criticism at a minimum. Openly calling oneself a “vanilla girl” in that context is not a neutral act.


Ma’am, this is a thread about skincare and nails.


The title is "White women try to 'reclaim power' through #vanillagirl and #cleangirl beauty posts." It's not a thread about skincare and nails; it's a thread about white women "reclaiming power."

The question is: what "power" is this that white women are "reclaiming?"


Don't you know we run the world? It's why we're so tired.


Yes, it is exhausting to have a nation be built partly on the notion that you are clean and pure—and universally appreciated, almost like actual vanilla. But it’s not only you and centering it on you when other people are so much more injured (often killed) by products of that ideology is cringey. Those ideas have always been the obverse of the demonization, oppression and exploitation of Black women and men in this country, among others

There’s nothing neutral about a #vanillagirl.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:OP, I agree with you 100%.

It makes no sense because white women have never owned the beauty industry that markets to white women. It's always been controlled by white men. Yes, women sometimes wield soft power through fashion and beauty, but that's traditionally because they were locked out of other avenues of power. It's also largely been a source of power for wealthy white women only. Do people get that most white women are not wealthy? At all?

I think this is missing the forrest for the trees. Women of color have gained some economic power in recent years thanks to the rise of aesthetics that are accessible to women of color as well as several high profile companies owned by women of color (like Fenty beauty). I think if you are thinking of the industry in those terms only, and you see white women posting about coastal grandmother or whatever, you think "oh they are trying to take the aesthetic back."

But they never owned the aesthetic! Fashion and beauty companies have traditionally be run by and owned by white men and a handful of wealthy "chosen" white women, and that small group of extremely privileged people (most of whom are not even women) have dictated beauty standards for all women, including white women. It wasn't empowering, it was confining and limiting, by design.

Like oh my god, imagine thinking that white women have historically wielded real power via an industry that has, for most of its history, sought to make women look smaller, weaker, less capable, and dependent. This is an industry that invented high heels, corsets, 40-step beauty routines, hair styles that can't be slept on, clothing without pockets, and a billion other things that literally handicap women from functioning normally or efficiently. Good lord.


Not true. Elizabeth Arden and Helen Rubinstein worked with chemists to develop the first sunscreen in the 1920s. Madame CJ Walker was known for face creams and powder in the 1920s.

Maybelline New York was born with a spark in 1917 when Mabel Williams singed her lashes in a cooking fire— and turned disaster into opportunity by mixing the ashes with Vaseline to create a mascara product for all.


This is such a clear example of how modern narratives end up distorting history. Ironically, the pp is actually serving the patriarchy herself by erasing the true history of women entrepreneurs. So misguided.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is remarkable that we made it this far without anyone acknowledging the various white power movements involved in, say, the attempt to overthrow the 2020 Presidential election results. This is real, they are active and dangerous, and white people who do not do much to distinguish themselves from those folks should expect some unpleasant criticism at a minimum. Openly calling oneself a “vanilla girl” in that context is not a neutral act.


Ma’am, this is a thread about skincare and nails.


The title is "White women try to 'reclaim power' through #vanillagirl and #cleangirl beauty posts." It's not a thread about skincare and nails; it's a thread about white women "reclaiming power."

The question is: what "power" is this that white women are "reclaiming?"


Don't you know we run the world? It's why we're so tired.


Yes, it is exhausting to have a nation be built partly on the notion that you are clean and pure—and universally appreciated, almost like actual vanilla. But it’s not only you and centering it on you when other people are so much more injured (often killed) by products of that ideology is cringey. Those ideas have always been the obverse of the demonization, oppression and exploitation of Black women and men in this country, among others

There’s nothing neutral about a #vanillagirl.


Yeah... no. Sorry, my grandparents were literally enslaved and this country was definitely not built for me. In fact women like me are the butt of maybe 40% of our country's jokes. Go find someone else to demonize because somehow you believe it helps you cause to do so. I'm busy.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP, I agree with you 100%.

It makes no sense because white women have never owned the beauty industry that markets to white women. It's always been controlled by white men. Yes, women sometimes wield soft power through fashion and beauty, but that's traditionally because they were locked out of other avenues of power. It's also largely been a source of power for wealthy white women only. Do people get that most white women are not wealthy? At all?

I think this is missing the forrest for the trees. Women of color have gained some economic power in recent years thanks to the rise of aesthetics that are accessible to women of color as well as several high profile companies owned by women of color (like Fenty beauty). I think if you are thinking of the industry in those terms only, and you see white women posting about coastal grandmother or whatever, you think "oh they are trying to take the aesthetic back."

But they never owned the aesthetic! Fashion and beauty companies have traditionally be run by and owned by white men and a handful of wealthy "chosen" white women, and that small group of extremely privileged people (most of whom are not even women) have dictated beauty standards for all women, including white women. It wasn't empowering, it was confining and limiting, by design.

Like oh my god, imagine thinking that white women have historically wielded real power via an industry that has, for most of its history, sought to make women look smaller, weaker, less capable, and dependent. This is an industry that invented high heels, corsets, 40-step beauty routines, hair styles that can't be slept on, clothing without pockets, and a billion other things that literally handicap women from functioning normally or efficiently. Good lord.


Not true. Elizabeth Arden and Helen Rubinstein worked with chemists to develop the first sunscreen in the 1920s. Madame CJ Walker was known for face creams and powder in the 1920s.

Maybelline New York was born with a spark in 1917 when Mabel Williams singed her lashes in a cooking fire— and turned disaster into opportunity by mixing the ashes with Vaseline to create a mascara product for all.


This is such a clear example of how modern narratives end up distorting history. Ironically, the pp is actually serving the patriarchy herself by erasing the true history of women entrepreneurs. So misguided.


Inventing and owning are two different things. Men have made more money off of the beauty industry than any of these women. And CJ Walker was black! Of course there have been women entrepreneurs, just as there have also been black entrepreneurs. That is different than arguing the beauty industry has largely been owned, run by and for the profit of women over the years. Not true. Like all industries, it was mostly men who made and kept the money.

These women were entrepreneurs at a time in history (not very long ago) when women were often not allowed to own bank accounts, take out loans, or own property. When women were legally the property of their husbands. It's not taking anything away from these women individually to note that they certainly did not run the industry and that it was men who largely profited from their work and ideas. It's facts.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is remarkable that we made it this far without anyone acknowledging the various white power movements involved in, say, the attempt to overthrow the 2020 Presidential election results. This is real, they are active and dangerous, and white people who do not do much to distinguish themselves from those folks should expect some unpleasant criticism at a minimum. Openly calling oneself a “vanilla girl” in that context is not a neutral act.


Ma’am, this is a thread about skincare and nails.


The title is "White women try to 'reclaim power' through #vanillagirl and #cleangirl beauty posts." It's not a thread about skincare and nails; it's a thread about white women "reclaiming power."

The question is: what "power" is this that white women are "reclaiming?"


Don't you know we run the world? It's why we're so tired.


Yes, it is exhausting to have a nation be built partly on the notion that you are clean and pure—and universally appreciated, almost like actual vanilla. But it’s not only you and centering it on you when other people are so much more injured (often killed) by products of that ideology is cringey. Those ideas have always been the obverse of the demonization, oppression and exploitation of Black women and men in this country, among others

There’s nothing neutral about a #vanillagirl.


Is the no-makeup look killing people???
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP, I agree with you 100%.

It makes no sense because white women have never owned the beauty industry that markets to white women. It's always been controlled by white men. Yes, women sometimes wield soft power through fashion and beauty, but that's traditionally because they were locked out of other avenues of power. It's also largely been a source of power for wealthy white women only. Do people get that most white women are not wealthy? At all?

I think this is missing the forrest for the trees. Women of color have gained some economic power in recent years thanks to the rise of aesthetics that are accessible to women of color as well as several high profile companies owned by women of color (like Fenty beauty). I think if you are thinking of the industry in those terms only, and you see white women posting about coastal grandmother or whatever, you think "oh they are trying to take the aesthetic back."

But they never owned the aesthetic! Fashion and beauty companies have traditionally be run by and owned by white men and a handful of wealthy "chosen" white women, and that small group of extremely privileged people (most of whom are not even women) have dictated beauty standards for all women, including white women. It wasn't empowering, it was confining and limiting, by design.

Like oh my god, imagine thinking that white women have historically wielded real power via an industry that has, for most of its history, sought to make women look smaller, weaker, less capable, and dependent. This is an industry that invented high heels, corsets, 40-step beauty routines, hair styles that can't be slept on, clothing without pockets, and a billion other things that literally handicap women from functioning normally or efficiently. Good lord.


Not true. Elizabeth Arden and Helen Rubinstein worked with chemists to develop the first sunscreen in the 1920s. Madame CJ Walker was known for face creams and powder in the 1920s.

Maybelline New York was born with a spark in 1917 when Mabel Williams singed her lashes in a cooking fire— and turned disaster into opportunity by mixing the ashes with Vaseline to create a mascara product for all.


This is such a clear example of how modern narratives end up distorting history. Ironically, the pp is actually serving the patriarchy herself by erasing the true history of women entrepreneurs. So misguided.


I think you’re missing PP’s point. Despite these examples of these few women starting businesses, those at the top of the industry are predominantly men.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP, I agree with you 100%.

It makes no sense because white women have never owned the beauty industry that markets to white women. It's always been controlled by white men. Yes, women sometimes wield soft power through fashion and beauty, but that's traditionally because they were locked out of other avenues of power. It's also largely been a source of power for wealthy white women only. Do people get that most white women are not wealthy? At all?

I think this is missing the forrest for the trees. Women of color have gained some economic power in recent years thanks to the rise of aesthetics that are accessible to women of color as well as several high profile companies owned by women of color (like Fenty beauty). I think if you are thinking of the industry in those terms only, and you see white women posting about coastal grandmother or whatever, you think "oh they are trying to take the aesthetic back."

But they never owned the aesthetic! Fashion and beauty companies have traditionally be run by and owned by white men and a handful of wealthy "chosen" white women, and that small group of extremely privileged people (most of whom are not even women) have dictated beauty standards for all women, including white women. It wasn't empowering, it was confining and limiting, by design.

Like oh my god, imagine thinking that white women have historically wielded real power via an industry that has, for most of its history, sought to make women look smaller, weaker, less capable, and dependent. This is an industry that invented high heels, corsets, 40-step beauty routines, hair styles that can't be slept on, clothing without pockets, and a billion other things that literally handicap women from functioning normally or efficiently. Good lord.


Not true. Elizabeth Arden and Helen Rubinstein worked with chemists to develop the first sunscreen in the 1920s. Madame CJ Walker was known for face creams and powder in the 1920s.

Maybelline New York was born with a spark in 1917 when Mabel Williams singed her lashes in a cooking fire— and turned disaster into opportunity by mixing the ashes with Vaseline to create a mascara product for all.


This is such a clear example of how modern narratives end up distorting history. Ironically, the pp is actually serving the patriarchy herself by erasing the true history of women entrepreneurs. So misguided.


I think you’re missing PP’s point. Despite these examples of these few women starting businesses, those at the top of the industry are predominantly men.


It's like looking at the music industry in the 60s and concluding that black people ran the industry because there were a lot of individual black artists making music and money. But the music industry has always been run by men.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I’m a white woman and I’m not upset about the article at all. I’m not sure I buy it completely but I think there are some valid kernels in there. I certainly don’t feel attacked.


Congrats. What are the valid kernels?

My problem with it is that everything valid in the piece is undermined by the stuff that is hyperbole or just blatantly false. Like, yes, there is a history of white women appropriating black culture and aesthetics for their personal gain (i.e. the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus twerking to shake her Disney image, etc.). And there is a vile history of white women using performative victimhood to provoke violence against black people (Emmett Till and all the awful stories like his, but also more recent examples like the woman in Central Park calling the cops on a black man for looking at birds). Those are valid and valuable criticisms and as a white woman, I think we need to talk about it and be accountable.

But to take those valid criticisms and apply them to young white women posting on social media about the "no make-up makeup" look or how much they enjoy wearing outfits composed of tone on tone beige items? It undermines the whole thing. Because those are not the same. And also, white women are not the only women posting on social media about natural beauty or neutral aesthetics. At all. Plus there's a huge difference between someone like Kim Kardashian or Miley Cyrus or even Amy Cooper (the Central Park lady, who worked in finance and was quite privileged) and just random young white women on social media. Those are women with real power, because they are wealthy and have access to powerful people and opportunities. That's not true of the vast majority of white women. So it just doesn't track to lump all white women in together and argue that a white woman talking about neutral lip gloss on TikTok is trying to enact "violence" on people of color. And it's such a leap that it starts to embrace a lot of misogynist tropes about white women -- that they are manipulative and power hungry, that they are shallow and selfish. Tropes that are often used to justify violence against women, actually.

The article might start out making some fair points, but when it ultimately lands on talking points that would not be out of place in a 4chan article written by incels, or an explanation by Harvey Weinstein as to why his behavior was actually justified, then maybe it's time to take a step back and ask yourself what your are doing and why.


Thank you.
Anonymous
^ Meant to say white men. Clive Davis and the like. Beauty industry is the same. Most industries are the same! The rules were designed so that it was hard to impossible for women OR people of color (and definitely not women of color) to make and keep money. Even when entrepreneurial individuals broke through with a business or idea, they were held back by laws and cultural norms that prevented them from truly capitalizing on those ideas or hard work the way white men could. More often, white men who did nothing and had no ideas capitalized on the ideas and hard work of women and people of color.

There should be so much solidarity here and instead we bicker amongst ourselves. It is so counterproductive.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:OP, I agree with you 100%.

It makes no sense because white women have never owned the beauty industry that markets to white women. It's always been controlled by white men. Yes, women sometimes wield soft power through fashion and beauty, but that's traditionally because they were locked out of other avenues of power. It's also largely been a source of power for wealthy white women only. Do people get that most white women are not wealthy? At all?

I think this is missing the forrest for the trees. Women of color have gained some economic power in recent years thanks to the rise of aesthetics that are accessible to women of color as well as several high profile companies owned by women of color (like Fenty beauty). I think if you are thinking of the industry in those terms only, and you see white women posting about coastal grandmother or whatever, you think "oh they are trying to take the aesthetic back."

But they never owned the aesthetic! Fashion and beauty companies have traditionally be run by and owned by white men and a handful of wealthy "chosen" white women, and that small group of extremely privileged people (most of whom are not even women) have dictated beauty standards for all women, including white women. It wasn't empowering, it was confining and limiting, by design.

Like oh my god, imagine thinking that white women have historically wielded real power via an industry that has, for most of its history, sought to make women look smaller, weaker, less capable, and dependent. This is an industry that invented high heels, corsets, 40-step beauty routines, hair styles that can't be slept on, clothing without pockets, and a billion other things that literally handicap women from functioning normally or efficiently. Good lord.


This. All of it. The beauty industry exists to make money by making women feel badly about themselves.
Forum Index » Off-Topic
Go to: