Yes, why are women who *choose **not *to wear make up seen as less valuable by 2/3 of businesses? Shouldn’t their personal preferences be respected?
Not to mention that for some women it’s not about personal preference, it’s about personal health (I did mention that actual doctors have told me for years to avoid all make up, in my case it’s medical advice, not “preference”).
The judgement is about women who choose to wear make up, it’s about women who do not.
And yeah, some people are epicly bad at applying make up. I sort of expect teenagers to go through a phase of that because, well, teenagers. When you’re talking about 30, 40, 50 year women it gets sort of sad.
If you want to use a tanning bed, never wear a seat belt, huff toluene, drink yourself into a stupor nightly, or slather carcinogens on your skin, feel free.
I’m going to judge those all as potentially self-destructive activities with little benefit and assume you are either ignorant of the detrimental effect these activities could have on your life and health or value them above your physical well-being. Sorry if that sounds judgemental of your choices, but why do you care? Why do you think your choices are above judgment?
This is a discussion about wearing vs. not wearing makeup. No one is mocking you in the street and making nasty comments about how you look. I think you probably do understand that makeup does contain harmful ingredients, but you don’t want to believe it or stop using it so you are upset that it has been pointed out and feel bad that you don’t care to stop the self-destructive behavior. Putting your health on the back burner and ignoring the potential for long-term negative consequences is pretty normal really, but the person that notices is not out to get you.
This is a silly thing to say. Anything can cause a reaction in people who are particularly sensitive or allergic to that thing. That’s what being sensitive to or allergic to mean.
Yes, but some substances are more likely to cause reactions than others. Those ingredients cause that sort of problem more frequently than many others.
I have no dog in this fight, but in the interest of providing unbiased information, I give you this link. to the American Cancer Society page on cosmentics and cancer. At best all we can say for sure is “no one really knows”:
Just saying something is “toxic” really doesn’t give much information. Almonds contain cyanide, for instance. Wild almonds contain enough in as few as a dozen nuts to kill a person. Commercially available domesticated almonds contain the same chemical, but it would take somewhere north of 1,600 nuts to reach toxic levels in a human. Water is toxic in large enough doses. It’s all about the quantity, and that is where the data on cosmetics becomes very scarce.
How about lead? The FDA found lead in every lipstick they tested ( Limiting Lead in Lipstick and Other Cosmetics | FDA ) and they consider acceptable level of lead ingestion to be zero. That’s for everyone, not just “lead-sensitive” individuals. They still say wearing the lipstick is okay, just don’t lick your lips or ever eat or drink with it on! Sounds pretty safe to put all over your mouth, huh?
I wasn’t talking about lead, nor about dangerous things in makeup in general. So you may tell me about lead to your heart’s content and it will not actually change my position on the topic I was addressing.
It’s almost like I was not trying to change your opinion on that, but rather mentioning the fact that lead is not something one should ingest in any quantity at all, and thus could reasonably be considered to be a bad thing to paint a ring of around your food-hole every day, regardless of how you feel about chemicals that cause an obvious reaction in sensitive individuals.
If some people immediately suffer from immediate obvious negative effects from a chemical, the idea that it might not be so great for anybody does have some merit and could warrant further investigation is not so crazy either.
Most of my woman friends, including the one I’m married to, don’t use makeup. Yet, other than during the Great Recession, they haven’t had problems finding work.
Oh, sure, before the Great Recession I didn’t have trouble finding work either, but when the crap hit the fan it was just one more way to whittle down the pool of eligible candidates.
This will also vary from one location to another due to local culture.
I haven’t yet seen anything that would tell me that makeup is actually “toxic”, beyond articles quoting scary-sounding ingredients, without mentioning the danger level of the ingredients vs the amount actually found in the makeup. The dose makes the poison.
Hair dye…yeah, I’d forgotten about lead acetate in Grecian Formula, but I tend to lighten my hair, not darken it.
A lot of business owners/managers really believe that physical attractiveness in the women who work there will help their business. And by that, I mean they want female employees who will be conventionally alluring to men. This tends to mean they wear makeup, sexy fashions, etc. And, in some instances, I have seen them be right. Some clients and VIPs really will show up more/throw their business your way if they really like being around your office. And part of that sometimes is, they like flirting with that sexy receptionist when they come in the door. Or looking down the blouse of the hot administrator during the necessary but boring meetings.
I was no-makeup for a lot of my career, and that definitely attracted a certain type of man (usually older) in a big (and often slightly creepy) way. So there were times I was very aware I got a career advantage for not wearing it/looking the way I do. Is that fair? Nope. I’m pretty confident it happened, though, because some of them made comments.
I think it’s a nice ideal, that we should respect others’ looks choices, but I think it’s unlikely to happen because there are some primal reactions, and strong social conventions, getting in the way.
Well, since Grecian Fomula and other progressive dye products have been known to be high in lead for decades, people should freakin’ know better.
Which means there aren’t any easily-available studies that demonstrate the likelihood of being *actually *harmed by lipstick, but there are lots of web pages that will tell you, “ZOMG!!! LEAD IN MAKEUP!!!” without any mention of amount or potential for damage.
The CDC considers dirt to be uncomtaminated by lead when there is up to 50 ppm (parts per million). A lipstick contains from .009 on up (I think the highest I saw while looking up actual facts and data was around 8 ppm). How much lipstick will you have to eat to actually have a problem?
Candy, BTW, can legally have up to .1 ppm.
In 2010, the FDA tested 13 samples of apple juice, grape juice, peach slices, pears, mixed fruit and fruit cocktail for lead. There was lead in all of the samples, but less than the amount considered unsafe for consumption.
If you don’t want to wear makeup, fine, but don’t go on about it being “toxic”, like it’s been whipped up with water from Three Mile Island.