I like to have mindless television on while I work. Or procrastinate as I noodle around the interweb. What Not To Wear is on, and, I admit, I have a problematic relationship with this show. On the one hand, I like that it teaches women to feel empowered by their appearance and find confidence in their own skin. On the other hand, why don't they give makeovers to men anymore? They used to years ago and those were some of my favorite episodes. On yet another hand, I like that they try to bring peoples personalities out in their clothing choices as opposed to change their stylistic identity completely. However, I have a problem that their word "sophisticated" is really code for "You can still be biker chick chic, but do it in a kicky platform strappy sandal as opposed to assless chaps."

But my biggest pet peeve is with the make-up portion of the show. Carmindy (a great name, a beautiful woman and a very talented make-up artist) refuses to call people by their ethnicity. White women are not white. They have porcelain skin. Black women are not black. They are mocha. And it's not just Carmindy, this has been trend on makeover shows for years.

I feel like there is an inherent judgment call in the kinds of adjectives being used with women of color. White women get associated with adjectives like porcelain that brings to mind statues or teapots, or, ya know, toilets, but whatever, while women of color often get associated with adjectives that get consumed: mocha, caramel, chocolate! Women of color are delicious, but I think that's going a bit too far as to be a slightly disturbing (if it was once in a while, I would say artistic license, but it's been a consistent theme for at least four years--that's when I started watching stuff like What Not To Wear). The reason why this is an issue to me is because when one's skin color is equated to things that are outside the body, it suggests that there's an inherent lasting value, while another's skin color is equated to edible objects, it suggests that there's a temporary value. And it feels like implicit racism.

Why don't we say to a white woman, "This shade of blush looks great on marshmallow skin." And if a white chick has skin problems, "This foundation works great with tapioca skin."

I would so pay to see that.

I don't know... I'd like to hear what others think. What words should be used when describing skin tones? Should everyone be described according to one adjectival family? (For instance, let's describe everyone  according to coffee flavors!) Or should we be free to be you and me? And if we should be free, should we be aware of the privileging of race through adjectives?

Labels: adjectives, language, the personal is political dammit, what not to wear

( 4comments )

at August 30, 2008 1:31 AM  natalia said...

I love the phrase "tapioca skin." So cool. I want people to say I have tapioca skin. I think, my skin doesn't quite fit the category though. I've been told I have an "olive" complexion. Does that mean that someone wants to put me in a vodka martini?

I agree with what you're saying here. It's interesting how the term "porcelain" conjures up images of cold things for me, while the words "mocha," "caramel" and "chocolate" are all very hot, very sensual. I think this connects to racism, honestly. Something perhaps about the "nature" of these two races? Also, the terms for the Black women's skin types also come down to images that are runny, that melt, that can change shape, while porcelain is very rigid. At any rate, these terms for skin tone conjure up images of Victorian ideas of race (and sexuality) for me... which is quite disturbing.

 

at August 30, 2008 5:53 AM  Mike said...

If someone told me I had marshmallow skin, I probably wouldn't be too happy. That just conjures up images of the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man, and he was kinda fat.

 

at August 30, 2008 10:20 AM  jillydreadful said...

So are you saying that telling someone they have mocha skin is better or worse than marshmallow?

 

at August 30, 2008 10:29 AM  jillydreadful said...

And that's exactly my point: olive?! What the hell does olive mean? Are you green? No. Are you black? No. Are you stuffed with pimento? I wouldn't know, but if you are, hopefully it's on your own terms.

Think about it, there are three major types of skin tones: fair, olive, dark. Isn't that weird? I know some companies will classify foundations as: light, medium, dark, which seems a little more equitable. But I still think it's weird that we have fair, olive and ark are used together in magazines. Because fair is a term that is associated with beauty, olive--I'm totally lost on what olive is associated with aside from olives, and dark, when used in direct opposition to fair feels like there's a stronger association with dark things, like disturbing things.

This is weird, no?