Pondering Racial Connotations of "Lightful"

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me220 I never implied any of those things about you, although you may want to check who gets to determine a true injustice. Who decides what is worth discussion? and is that a sign of priviledge, which is another representation of the same ideal we're discussing? Btw, those questions are not at you so much as to provide discussion, much like your questions to OnaFrye.

I definitely can see what you're saying, and I would hope, in that instance, common sense prevailed.
Someone walking past a black female and not acknowledging her = possibly, but probably not, racially motivated. If they're anything like me, they're walking through life with focus on internal thoughts vs acknowledging every person they pass. Not an inequity or injustice, IMO.
Someone walking past a black female and spitting on her = probably racially motivated and definitely an inequity or injustice.
Hispanic female not getting a job in a cush upperlevel management office because according to her resume she's underqualified for the job = not an injustice.
Hispanic female not getting a job in a cush upperlevel management office because she's hispanic, and job goes to a lesser qualified black female = injustice / inequity.
A white female applying for the same job, stellar resume, but doesn't get it because she's missing one college course/certification they want = that's life.
A white female applying for the same job, stellar resume, but doesn't get it because there's a 'minority' applicant who, though she doesn't have the same qualifications, or even comparable qualifications, gets the job because of affirmative action = inequity or injustice.

Does any of that make sense?

 

[Juneplum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Why does everything come back to race? Why do people LOOK for "trouble" so to speak? Good grief. It's a marketing campaign based on making the skin "glow" with "light" from within, hence the phrase "lightful". Yeesh.

amen.

honestly, i'm looking forward to trying them out myself because that's EXACTLY how i perceived the message - getting your skin to glow i.e lit from within... not once did i perceive anything untoward from the collection. in fact i did a livechat today on the MAC site and that's exactly how she explained the products to me.

 

[VeronikaJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperRealGurl I dont understand how everything turns into a racial issue... its cosmetics people. this collections is not about " this new product line to change the color of our skin" This line is to brighten skin, and even out your skintone. It doesnt matter what race u are to have areas on your face that is not even in color, or whatever the issue may be. So lets not act like its going to be some type of cream thats going to turn ur skin white.. b.c i dont think thats the case. A name is just that.. ( A name) lets not take it literally. its just another line Mac came up with thats all

Right On!

Not everything has to turn into some deep, external and internal issue that needs further debate. It's just cosmetics...and in the grand scheme of things it's up to personal choice if you so desire to buy/use any cosmetic product in the first place.

 

[Juneplum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by claresauntie Actually, I think it sounds more "Deep Thought-y" to me. But I'm not trying to make a stink, just saying I agree with the OP.

..and this is exactly why i've just moved it to deep thoughts

 

[astronaut]

//admin edit: please let's keep on topic. thanks

 

[martygreene]

I find it interesting that no one (at least that I saw, if I missed it I wholly apologise) has mentioned that this line has existed and been sold in Asian countries for at least a year now, if not more. I find that aspect of this even more interesting, that this was originally exclusively developed for the Asian market.

 

[*Stargazer*]

Honest to God, if this stuff lightens any of my acne scars, they could call it "ladybug10678 is a wretched hooker" and I'd still buy it.

I have trouble finding cosmetics for my skintone. Probably because I'm biracial. I thank MAC for making colors that I can actually wear, in product ranges that suit my skin and tone. I am more apt to believe that the reasons it is harder for some WOC (and very pale skinned women) have more to do with financial reasons than any inherent racism on the part of cosmetics companies.

Edited: because I mean financial reasons on the part of the Cosmetics Companies, not on the part of the people seeking the cosmetics. That didn't read right.

 

[claresauntie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladybug10678 Honest to God, if this stuff lightens any of my acne scars, they could call it "ladybug10678 is a wretched hooker" and I'd still buy it.

I like what you had to say, but love this!

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by martygreene I find it interesting that no one (at least that I saw, if I missed it I wholly apologise) has mentioned that this line has existed and been sold in Asian countries for at least a year now, if not more. I find that aspect of this even more interesting, that this was originally exclusively developed for the Asian market.

This is a very legitimate point, especially given the culturally accepted (to the point of women doing things that leave them scarred for life or worse) Asian ideal of being very, very pale.

Do I think it means anything that they are marketing it here as far as beauty ideals go? No, I don't. Again, I think its purely financial on the part of MAC.

 

[GalleyGirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer It doesn't go away because people stop talking about it. It goes away because people take away the power of the belief.

I think it (the racial discussion) goes away when people overreact to everything...a serious issue becomes base when its beaten to death, and people throw up their hands, because they can't take a foot out the door without having to keep an eye out for the PC police. Just my two cents.

 

[Me220]

I understand that not everything is an issue, but I wanted to talk about this issue at this time in this context. And I am beyond disgusted at the repeated insistence to get over it. I honestly just wanted to see what people think about how this piece fits into the larger context of the beauty standard. But I'm really done. It's been a pleasure.

 

[GalleyGirl]

Actually in a larger cultural context, I do think this is a really interesting discussion...I honestly don't think MAC meant anything racial in its naming of the collection, but historically "lightness" is connected to notions of purity and beauty, which in turn have been linked to whiteness and white faces. I just dug up an old cultural studies book I have called "White" by Richard Dyer, which has a whole chapter on this (called "The Light of the World"). The book itself is an interesting read, I recommend it to anyone.
So yes, light is a loaded word, but in the context of MAC's collection, I think it is harmless (or at least wasn't named with harm as an intention - clearly some part is harmful, because it provokes in people painful connotations).

 

[Hawkeye]

Can I just say every single one of you is crazy and I am the only sane person who is posting on this topic? LOLOL

OK that being said.

I totally understand what Me220 is getting at. Why did they choose a white woman to show glowing skin. Why not a black a woman? Does a black woman not have glowing skin?

And no the topic isn't about race as much as it is the question: Why? And I think the only people who are making it a racial issue is those denouncing the simple question that is being asked. Which is weird hearing it from me.

What is the modern version of beauty? The standard? What is it in the industry?

I have to agree that asians have been using skin lightening products for years and years because their ideal version of beauty is very very pale skin. (Thanks for bringing it up Marty!). But in America what is the ideal version of beauty? Why doesn't MAC use more black models? Does mac not view color as gorgeous?

It's not race here- now it's merely perspective.

Just my thoughts.

 

[GalleyGirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye I totally understand what Me220 is getting at. Why did they choose a white woman to show glowing skin. Why not a black a woman? Does a black woman not have glowing skin?

Along those lines of logic, every single advertisement for every single product should include every type of race, gender, etc., for fear of offending anyone who isn't included in the ad.

 

[*Stargazer*]

I think MAC uses more non-white models than any other non-aimed-at-one-specific-race makeup line that I can think of. I don't ever recall seeing as many diverse ads in other major lines as all of the various color story ads.

 

[Hawkeye]

And that's where we begin to tread on the Political Correctness Foolishness.

Quote:

Along those lines of logic, every single advertisement for every single product should include every type of race, gender, etc., for fear of offending anyone who isn't included in the ad.

And it's with this- why is everything about race logic that people are refusing to answer the simple question-

Why?

Would a woman of color with glowy skin be just as effective? Why is it that in the past few months the only WoC that has been seen anywhere is in the Barbie collection? (again I could be wrong).

But its not just a whole logic thing as much as a mere question:

Why.

It's not a racist and an "i'm offended" post as much as it is- I've noticed this and why is it that a lot of the campaigns from MAC don't include a WoC .... and then they come out with this with a girl with very pale white skin that is the focus.

Why not a black woman with very glowy skin?

The question is- What is percieved by MAC to be beautiful?

 

[*Stargazer*]

Maybe they picked a very, very pale white woman so that they could use the particular light effects they've used on the promo pic. It looks like rays of light emanating from her. The composition of the picture might look odd with someone of my skin color.

Maybe they just really liked the way that this woman looked and she happened to be white.

I don't think you can ask the broader question (and get a non-speculative answer) without knowing the absolute reason that MAC chose this model and we just aren't privy to that. It COULD very well be that they picked a white woman to go with some messed up notion of beauty, but we can't assume that because there are so many other reasons they could have picked this particular model. It is conceivable that it is incidental that she is white, if that makes sense.

 

[f1rewater]

To me the American beauty standard is a humongous fantasy that cannot be representative of any race or ethnic group because as far as i can tell it goes something like this:

You have to be thin, but be careful because then you can be too thin and get called anorexic. If big boobs and butts don't come naturally to you, you better go get some cause they're hot, but careful you don't want them to be too big cause then you are just fat and blobby. Full lips are sexy, but not too full cause then you are a monkey. You have to be white, but not pale, that's gross and you look sick, but don't go too dark or you risk looking too "ethnic". Blondes are hot, but dumb, dark-haired girls are sultry vixens, but then again blondes have more fun no? ...

Seriously who can keep up?

I don't care if the way i look is "in" or "out", my body and my color (or lack thereof) are not fashion accesories like a handbag or a pair of shoes. I stopped giving a rat's caboose about the way advertisements/media/fashion think i should look like a long time ago.

 

[Hawkeye]

And that may be the answer to the OP's question.

I think a lot of times we at specktra automatically want to associate race with everything without thinking hey maybe there is a reasoning behind the thought process without someone just claiming someone/thing/brand is racist.

And I feel that we have basically shouted out Me220's simple question down because it had that dirty word- race in it. *shrugs* and this is hard for me to say because I feel that the "race card" is played WAY too much but at the same time this is a valid question that I don't feel really has anything to do with calling someone/something racist as much as it is a simple question as: why?

I tend to agree with you ladybug- you may very well be right

 

[Hawkeye]

Quote:

To me the American beauty standard is a humongous fantasy that cannot be representative of any race or ethnic group because as far as i can tell it goes something like this: You have to be thin, but be careful because then you can be too thin and get called anorexic. If big boobs and butts don't come naturally to you, you better go get some cause they're hot, but careful you don't want them to be too big cause then you are just fat and blobby. Full lips are sexy, but not too full cause then you are a monkey. You have to be white, but not pale, that's gross and you look sick, but don't go too dark or you risk looking too "ethnic". Blondes are hot, but dumb, dark-haired girls are sultry vixens, but then again blondes have more fun no? ... Seriously who can keep up? I don't care if the way i look is "in" or "out", my body and my color (or lack thereof) are not fashion accesories like a handbag or a pair of shoes. I stopped giving a rat's caboose about the way advertisements/media/fashion think i should look like a long time ago.

Very very well said