It's A Trending Nightmare: The No Mirror Makeup Challenge

The good, the bad, and the what does ugly even mean at this point? The "No Mirror Makeup Challenge" popular on YouTube has it all. We decided to give it a go, though we left out Jenna Marbles' drinking component and gave ourselves 7 instead of the standard 5 minutes for her remediation of it. We did choose, however, to utilize only our paws. No brushes. No sponges. Pure hell.

New styles of the challenge have emerged. There are untimed editions, three minute sprints, party-versions that may involve the alcohols, and so on.

Are we original? No. But we're a little bit funny. And it's always amusing to watch people flounder in hysteria. Other vloggers like Black Friday attempting this feat have really set the bar high. We thought nailing the basics would be difficult. She had to paint her eyebrows on with a special makeup marker type thing. Literally paint her eyebrows on. 

Most are of course not professional makeup artists, but the content creator NikkieTutorials is, and honestly her look at the end was nearly perfect. 

We noticed ourselves that it was so frustrating to not have a point of reference. And, per usual, nearly everyone who does this challenge makes a fish face. We wish doing it could give us magical powers to not come out looking like 

and feeling like

but such is the joy of humiliating yourself on the internet.

Fuck Off, Face Peel (no but srsly, fck the fck off)

We did it. We survived. 

Barely. 

The objective of our mission was to feel out whether or not these products (less frequently used by the general American public) would work as promised, or better than conventional methods. 

Some of them did not.

One of them ended in burning.

Just...just watch the video. 

The Natural Makeup Controversy

A standard exchange of niceties between two people often includes a backhanded remark referencing physical appearances. Debate about the term "polite conversation" aside, everyone has at least once in their life been told that they "look tired." Whether or not this "astute" observation is true, the comment is a subtle means of attack on the individual's self image and esteem. This socially acceptable form of communication faux pas is food for the beauty and makeup industry, whose entire existence is dependent upon perceived human imperfections.

For all intents and purposes, let's assume there are three levels of makeup application: a heavy, full- face of makeup, a light, natural look, and no makeup what-so-ever. Heavy, full-faced makeup includes, but is not limited to: foundation, concealer, bronzer, blush, eyebrow enhancers, eye-shadow, eyeliner, mascara, and lipstick and/or lip gloss. This is what would be known as a "glamorous look," utilizing techniques such as contouring (the application of darker foundation or bronzer underneath the cheekbones) or strobing (the application of lighter foundation on top of the cheekbones and T zone area) to create depth and enhance bone structure. Other features of a full-faced makeup look might include dark, smokey eye-shadow, the coveted cat-eye winged eyeliner, long, luscious (perhaps false) eyelashes, and a bold, colorful lip. This type of makeup application is meant to be noticeable and admired for its trendiness and the skill required to replicate it. Makeup styles of this nature are often criticized for being deceptive; changing the way an individual's face looks, and helping "ugly" people look "pretty." 

A natural makeup look, wouldn't you know, can also include, but is not limited to: foundation, concealer, bronzer, blush, eyebrow enhancers, eye-shadow, eyeliner, mascara, and lipstick and/or lip gloss. The difference between the two makeup techniques is simply the colors applied. Similar to the full-faced look, the natural look seeks to hide and manipulate blemishes and imperfections. This generally includes foundation to even out the complexion, and concealer to disguise acne, dark circles and discoloration. Both looks also utilize bronzer and blush to add a "healthy," "lively" glow to the skin, and to create shadows and the illusion of depth. This is where the differences begin to be noted. Where a full-faced eye-shadow technique employs vibrant colors and dark lines, a natural look relies on colors similar to the individual's skin tone and softer, less pronounced lines and shadows. In place of a dark, smokey eye, an individual might sweep a neutral color across their lid, and a slightly darker shade into their crease to create very subtle depth. Instead of a black, liquid lined cat-eye, an individual might gently smudge a dark brown eyeliner pencil along their top lash line. Slap on a light coat of mascara, and a neutral lipstick/gloss, and the natural look is born.  

This makeup routine, much like the Boy Brow product mentioned in another post, operates under the ironic idea that a natural look can be manufactured to look better or "more natural" than a truly natural, untouched face. Makeup-less looks, while praised for being "low maintenance," are often mistaken for laziness, fatigue and illness. A natural face simply cannot exist without the individual suffering from some fundamental issue or character flaw. So a balance must be struck between a lack of makeup and looking natural to appease the masses.

Aside from that, "natural" makeup has the subtle effect of reasserting whiteness as a standard of beauty, as Dr. Lisa Wade implies. While natural makeup products are available to a diverse audience, the majority of concealers and foundations skew toward lighter skin tones. As published by WWD, "African-American women spend $7.5 billion annually on beauty products, but shell out 80 percent more money on cosmetics and twice as much on skin care products than the general market, according to the research. That difference comes as African-American women sample many more products to find the ones that are most effective on their skin." Another problem to take into consideration is Mederma and how other products like it work differently on people with varying levels of scarring and varying levels of melanin. When coupled with unequal media representation, these aspects of our society collectively say, "White is natural." Even though someone with a deeper skin tone can effect a natural makeup look, the odds of them being able to use high quality products for every feature they need covered is low and the expense is high. The implications of this socioeconomically are catastrophic given race and gender based wealth gaps. The implications of this given that most lines do not provide shades that match very well are even worse. Many have to go a shade or two lighter than their own natural skin tone, which directly indicates pigmentation bias, and it is part of what has led to an increase in skin bleaching.

Social media has exacerbated this discrepancy. Color filters and photoshopping applications often paired with websites like Facebook and Instagram act as a form of validation. When you have the ability to manipulate your appearance online, you can emphasize certain aspects of your physical self - particularly complexion and shape. Removing red-eye and blemishes has always been a common concern, but because the beauty industry has failed large populations with narrow options for them, the appeal of 'correcting' images used in networked publics is understandable. However, this poses a dilemma because applications can be used in a way that subdues, which reaffirms a move toward homogeneity - or the "average" - but the average is always lightness in some form.

Overall, this is not to vilify the natural makeup style - but there are sociological dangers associated with it which affect not only how we view ourselves, but also, how we interact with others. The idea that you could be a "truer" you - a you with makeup to not look "made up" - raises a question about authenticity. What normative ideologies are we accepting? Are we forced in certain contexts to do this, for the sake of employment or general respect? If this is the situation, then it's a zero sum game for all of us. No one should be limited to foundations that don't even blend, but no one should feel expected to wear makeup either.

Ridiculously Gendered Everything

I am a woman who appears androgynous (when I choose), and the more literate I've become on gender issues, the more I'm just like, "Why the fuck are people forcing inanimate objects to pick sides?" In light of recent controversy about Bic’s new pen line, I thought it a prudent idea to revisit the subject of how gender somehow always ends up being a factor in product design and how store spaces are organized. While Target and other corporations are beginning to do away with some of this in terms of layout, gender-branding is still fairly prevalent. The "pink price" is a completely different conflict which I will not divulge opinions about here because it would be a lot like getting a raccoon high on cocaine only to set it adrift in an ice skating rink without any gear.

My favorite part of Amazon: the wit. 

Starting with the obvious: the neckline slimmer. Notoriously known through its infomercial targeting women. It's been reviewed (in a mocking way) on the Andrew Ward Hour, but we need more tomfoolery. Have you ever even thought to yourself it’s kinda like moshing, but like, a crash test dummy trying to mosh? The movement is unattractive. What are we supposed to find ugly about ourselves next? Our kneecaps? Hand wrinkles? Whether we have an innie or an outtie? How often we poop? The arches of our feet? I feel like this device would be useful if I was laying on my stomach but also still wanted to watch television and not rest on the side of my face. I could prop my chin up with it. And then shovel jelly beans into mine gobhole.

Boop.

Okay, maybe it makes some level of sense. Double chins are considered "undesirable" conventionally speaking. But eyeglasses? Those things you medically need? Why are they gendered? Also, until two years ago, I wasn't even conscious of the problem. I ambled over to a section with larger frames and I was all oooooooooooo yiss, but my mom walked up to me and said, "Those are men's glasses." "Your point?" She made that "c'mon you know why I'm saying this" frowny face, unhappy, almost like I was violating some unspoken code of conduct. She continued to pressure me until I stopped trying frames on from that section. "You don't want those. They take up your whole face." "That's kinda why I want them. I don't like having to see the bottom part floating around my peripheral." Much to my dismay, I had to mediate with an ambiguous option. It was $20 more because the lenses had to be cut and filed a bit extra. Guess who foot that bill? Huehuehue.jpg. Not me. Suck it, archaic schemas.

Not to say that I didn't note clear aesthetic styles emerging by gender. "Women's" frames had greater color and design diversity, embellishments, rhinestones, thicker frames, and structures that pointed upward toward the eyebrows. Also, magically, they make your acne go away and apply your lipstick for you. That's a pretty rad deal. "Men's" glasses tend to have thinner frames, usually they're made of metal, and the shape is firmly more rectangular or rounded out.

Women's Glasses: Bath and Body Works meets optometry.

Men's Glasses: IKEA fell in love with a broadsword. 

But when it's not about our abilities, it's about our bodies. Or, more pointedly, what goes in them. The company which owns Special K cereal - while they aren't screaming "BUY THIS YOU ANIMATRONIC VULVAS" - do some shady shit through association. The following are a few print ads they've run in the last decade.



Fitness? I guess that's not awful to inspire. She seems average in size. Fair. Wait. Wait wait wait. "Get there..." Is...is she supposed to lose weight to fit into that dress? Has that dress been photoshopped to have an hourglass figure? I am confused.



Really? SHE CAN ALREADY WEAR THAT SWIMSUIT. Her expression is probably supposed to be "tough" but it just screams "uncomfortable." Inb4 >dead eyes. 

"Lose your cover-up. Show off your confidence."

Grooooooooooooss.

Let's play with some permutations of that:

"Lose your confidence. Show off your cover-up."
"Your confidence cover-up."
"Lose your show-off confidence."

In the Matrix, it's:

"Never think critically. Always think negatively."
"Lol, body neutrality."
"Challenge yourself to be thin. Tell hypothyroidism and poly-cystic ovary syndrome to hit the road!"
"This could be you, smiling, staring at a green screen for low wages. If only you could bring yourself to eat less."

Weirdly, looking at these images makes me hungry. In any case, for some reason gendered foods are familiar if it's framed as being about weight loss. Protein bars and powders, too, aim for a certain audience. Perhaps not as frequently, but it's apparent. If something is for the inferiors, then it shall be pink. If it is for dieting, then it must be for "women."

Sometimes, however, it's about our genitals. Moodeez “feminine product holder” exists to remind you of our shame-inherent-for-having-bodily-functions-in-public dilemma. I guess it could be beneficial for some people who want to ‘hide’ their tampons and pads, but a) why? b) couldn’t they just be tucked in a bag? Maybe for a clutch when room is economized, Moodeez are doing folks a solid. But why should we feel anxious for the banal excretory prosody of organs? Our bodies did not diplomatically reach an agreement with us about what shall be expelled, in what amount, and when. It’s not like we failed to negotiate for a fair contract. We were born into a bad situation. So long as we're not being forced to sit on animal skins on the outskirts of major cities until we're done shedding uterine lining gush and eggs, I suppose we shouldn't complain excessively though, like we're entitled to respect and rationality. That would be crazy. 

Until a footwear debate emerges. Oh, lord, shoes are so gendered and given the history of heels you would think hey maybe don't gender shoes but they are anyway. They go from the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders to British prime ministers depending on the century, and yet it is an unspoken law that never shall both teams coexist in heel excellence at any given point. This rule does not apply to a) Yanis Marshall b) anyone performing Kinky Boots c) people who flippa the bird to our dominant hegemony. But has it ever occurred to anyone that it’s super weird for sneakers to be gendered? Sneakers are a passive middle-ground item, like tee shirts. And yet they are highly gendered. There's like a gendering spectrum for tennis shoes which asserts that the more highly gendered the sneaker, the higher it will be. You think I'm joking. I'm not joking. The Nike stiletto: for when you're fleeing a deranged killer in a horror movie, chest bouncing up and out thanks to a low-cut blouse picked for you despite moral objections.



It's almost like people need a constant reminder of their gender. Like they wake up every morning and think, "Who am I? What do I do with these secondary sex characteristics? How will I tell the world I'm a woman if I don't do everything they tell me to? I'm going to need a bar of soap with 'for men' on the label." Masculinity, as I'm getting at, appears a tad more circumspect. 

I've seen products with the Mars symbol smacked on them. "JUST IN CASE YOU WERE CURIOUS, THIS IS FOR MENNNNNNNNN!" Trogdor roared, while burninating the countryside.

Face masks and peels, for example, need to preach manhood on every single part of their packaging. Note the liberal use of navy blue and subdued silver, the bolded font. Do advertisers really think men have such fragile identities that they can’t do basic everyday tasks without affirming that they are male and do manly things…like follow proper hygiene recommendations? The only continuity I've discovered is how serene these models look. They're just so into it. So chilllllllll. Probably cuz they got a face peel for free. 

WINTER BITCH-SLAP. AGGRESSIVELY PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC PROMISES. 

But I vote to be pissed off anyway, because designers are catching on that this gender-pigeonholing isn't quite working how they planned. This is one of those rare examples of zero logic in the beauty industry. And yes, it is makeup; it’s meant to be like a hair pomade, a wax for styling and slightly highlighting eyebrows. But it’s called “Boy Brow.” All the models present as femme and have fuller eyebrows that appear to not be highly shaped or filled in at all, implying that in order to have your eyebrows look how they would without product, you need preen with “Boy Brow.” I feel like they’re saying the look of these eyebrows is somehow default “boyish" in an attempt to capitalize on the idea of "natural" eyebrows while putting forward low-maintenance is a "boy" quality - but in order to attain that look you must first use "Boy Brow" which is, definitionally, not low-maintenance.

I came across this useless mascara derivation through a sponsored ad on Facebook. It wasn't underneath a famous person's status update in my feed or anything - it was just there, looming, begging to be clicked. When considering how networked publics are allowing people to "gather for social, cultural, and civic purposes" (Boyd 39), we need to ask ourselves how technology is structuring us, whether it appears random or not. When we see advertisements like this on social media, we want to know whether or not the product is legitimate - the quality - but also where it comes from. These sponsored advertisements remove context. They appear in our framework suddenly, they're loosely based on our internet searches, and they're scrutinizing what we bring to our publics. I would not have seen that advertisement had I not been recently browsing Amazon.com for foundation sponges, Eucerin lotion, and a whole host of other unnecessaries. But something about "boy" in the message made me pursue it. For better or worse, it got my attention. And, unlike television and radio where you can only gauge viewership (rather than interest) with Nielsen ratings, every click on a sponsored ad tells a company that someone saw the ad and decided to go so far as the website. They may not know the motivations of the general public, but they can spot trends. Our culture already has a framework for personal grooming, and the gendering of eyebrow care has never done what "Boy Brow" has. They must know that much. So we, in networked publics (primarily through social media accounts) are baited, truly, into responding to a semi-purposeful cultural shift. Whether it be outrageous like Mancan wine or not, our attitudes and beliefs are preyed upon and adjusted every time we are exposed to something in a networked public. The difference is that we choose, consciously or unconsciously, what to think. Based on comments I've seen online, people need to be more conscious. 

These aren't superficial worries, because gendering extends past what we use to define ourselves and our social spaces. If you’ve never been to an outdoors supply store or looked at websites for ammunition and weaponry online, then you probably don’t know this, but distributors really believe making products pink often with camo is going to git them wimmenz ta drop the moolahs, and that boom, that makes their line inclusive. The problem here is that when you are at an expo or store, the immediate impression you get is, “Ah, I see they think they can attract my gender with a color and cursive script on an ugly hoodie.” On the rare occasion that it actually occurs to them to make something in pink, it certainly isn’t a majority of the merchandise. It’s just some of the merchandise, or a color option they offer for select items. 

Gander Mountain in particular has a reputation for stocking this stuff and, though I rarely find myself in such places, I always feel pandered to and insulted. Especially when they take a standard can of mace and make it bright pink. They do the same with pistols, jabbing points, paracord, and whistles. Impractically unsubtle. It’s like, “Here’s all we offer. Aw yea, now, what we got right here is some lady stuff that’ll register with your lady brains, so you ladies can enjoy the men stuff, but in a lady way. Uh huh. And, ya know, lose that element of surprise you mighta needed.” When I went to an expo in Champaign, the only "feminized" booth was all about self-defense, and the owner had a giant sign about rates of sexual violence against women. Perfect vacation activity. The table cloth, the tools, the stickers, the business cards: a pinkifying purlplish monster of a scene. I ended up purchasing a key chain (which acts as a concealed version of brass knuckles) elsewhere because obviously I don't want to draw attention to myself if I'm rifling through a satchel casually or traveling. That and I have a strong preference for black. Nonetheless, these tactics lead me to believe that, regardless of how snarky a general public might be, this shit does appeal to some. Would I rather every option be shown as being for anyone? Of course. Entirely. But the system is being fed by a loud annoying crowd. The kind you might see at a Jimmy Buffet concert. Yeaaaaaaaaaaa.

Need a piece? Don't worry. Our "Tactical Pink Cleaning System" has pink parts to pink your pink heart, and while you're at it, treat yo self to a fanciful tote bag. 

Deodorant, vitamin supplements, hair products, bicycles, luggage: everything is ridiculously gendered and patronizing, and yet - our material assemblages do say something about us, through our own self-selection. If we want the world to be unfucked a little and gender-skewing to stop, we would have to, as a society, stop following normative behavior patterns and demand fair representation. We can become influential. We can establish our own businesses. We can provide an alternative. We can support those who do. We can yell at the top of our lungs, "We are more than our purchasing power." Because we are. And we don't need their bullshit to determine our values and selfhood or what colors to enjoy.