Carol’s Daughter, a cosmetics company, recently rolled out a new ad campaign centered on diversity. They chose three mixed race women to represent them; all beautiful, all celebrities, all what we in the black community refer to as ‘light skinned.’
In case you haven’t noticed, I am a black woman. I also wear my hair ‘natural’… that is I don’t use chemical processes to alter its color or texture. Carol’s Daughter has built their brand by marketing "natural' beauty products to the average black woman like me, and many were upset that the models chosen to represent the brand did not represent them.
I pointed out that while the new ad campaign did not feature the average black woman it did feature three women who fit the current black American beauty ideal and that almost all beauty brands in capitalistic markets use models who fit the beauty ideal for their targeted demographic.
This is what I said:
“[T]hey [Carol’s Daughter] said diverse (which it is) not redefining beauty. Symmetry, skin tone, etc. which is universal.”
“Show me dark skinned, kinky haired 'beautiful' celebrities the AA community will clamor to look like. None.”
“That's the African American beauty ideal. Period. White companies cater to white beauty ideals. #Capitalism”
“Sadly, selling out is a normal part of #capitalism. All businesses that want to make money do it.”
When beauty brands try to define the beauty standard instead of simply represent them their attempts are usually short lived because redefining the status quo does not make them money.
I then went on to say that beauty ideals are naturally determined (in my opinion).
Whoa! Talk about stepping in a hornet's nest. This got me labeled a racist, colorist, eugenicist, classist & Hitlerist; okay, I made the last one up, but still, pretty harsh. I responded with some pretty mean tweets (I pointed out that low-self esteem was probably at the root of some of my detractor's issues with my comments, that is, the need to be validated by outside sources.
Ouch, & I'm sorry that I became frustrated and hurt the feeling of a few people whom life has already hurt enough. However, those comments were a digression. I stand by the principle of what I was saying. So, here it goes...
Btw; “I never said it was MY ideal. I simply acknowledged that it is the overall beauty ideal in the AA community.”
Nope. The train was out of the station running on anger and past hurt that had nothing to do with me, and nothing to do with the topic of the existence of beauty ideals being a naturally occurring phenomenon. (You can see @QuotidianLight’s YouTube explanation of her explosive response to the whole thing here.)
That wasn’t the end of it though. The next day a few other people came out of nowhere and began lecturing me on the ‘danger’ of my idea that bad things are natural. I resisted the urge to refer her to Nietzsche’s “Beyond Good and Evil,’ it is a pretty dense read after all.But, I stood (and stand) by my assertion that everything is naturally determined.
I was told that society/culture determines beauty ideals, not nature.
My response:
“I'm not a biologist or anthropologist, but I am convinced that much of our behavior is genetically (biologically) determined.”
“I think we, as humans, tend to forget that we are part of nature, not above or outside of it. Even spirituality is a natural development in our evolution as a species. So yes, what we find beautiful is determined by biology.”
“I believe ALL of our behavior is determined by nature. The nurturing environment itself is also naturally developed so strictly speaking nature vs nurture is a moot argument.”
“Culture is created by biological factors. Everything we think, feel, create occurs naturally.”
“I believe that 'Nature' like Nietzsche's 'Truth' needs no defender. Everything is always as it should be and could be no other way. #Karma”
“Saying humans are doing something 'against' Nature is like suggesting a drop of ocean water could rise in defiance of the ocean... How can a thing subvert or control the very laws which provide for and guide that thing's existence?”
“Every invention of mankind (physical or psychological) is merely Nature expressing itself.”
“If we could put aside our ego we would see that the human view of things is incomplete. None of us comprehends all of Nature.”
I have preferences too. I don't like being attacked or discriminated against. I would be devastated if my house were taken out by a tornado or a flood. However, I accept that these things are part of nature. I may try to protect against things that are bad for me personally, because I am human, but I still acknowledge and accept that everything that exists in Nature has a place and a purpose. I know that I am not the center of all existence. I deal with it.
Sounds sensible enough, right? Or not. Let me know what you think. Thanks.
Namaste,
Ani
