And now I'm leaving for the airport so you can fight this out without me.

Whoa, you've had a joint bank account with someone?

Oh, sure -- being picky about the people you date is fine; I was harassing ogged over his specific rule, not fussiness in general.

I don't think anyone missed this, Becks. There's nothing wrong with Ogged's makeup rule. The trick is not to pretend the `rule' gives you information about people that it really doesn't. Or to pretend you can tell anything much about anyone based on something as relatively neutral as `wears makeup' (you can tell more, in some contexts, by the converse).

2 - We were living together over the summer between terms at school and pooled our money for rent, expenses, etc. It wasn't a joint bank account because we couldn't scrape together the minimum to open one (more of a "cash under the mattress" situation) but same idea.

The quibble wasn't with the existence of criteria, or a preference, but rather the idea that the criterion 'wears make-up' was a useful sorter for the qualities ogged cares about. If wearing makeup is ubiquitous as brushing your teeth or shaving or wearing jeans, it's probably unlikely to tell you as much as not wearing make-up would.

It's not that I, at least, and I read LB this way too, though we may both be typing in invisible ink today, have a problem with having stricter criteria for dating or for criteria that are exclusive. I just think that excluding 'wears light makeup' probably cuts out a lot of women that would have all of the wallflower, mousy qualities that ogged desires.

6: exactly.

(And it got heated because it sets off some of the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't femininity issues.)

(you can tell more, in some contexts, by the converse).

That was the point, no?

Eh, I think even the not-wearing makeup isn't a good predictor of much. It means more than wearing makeup does, but not a whole lot more.

Yeah, 6 gets it.

I'm sure I have all kinds of picky/stupid things I find attractive or unattractive, too. I just don't think that most of the superficial things I find attractive or unattractive are also useful proxies for the majority of character traits I care about.

9: only in some contexts. And there it is *not* a good predictor of what Ogged claimed. Otherwise, LB is right in 10.

Let's all wear burqas. Or, for improved chafing, burqas lined with hair.

I'll also take this opportunity to wonder if there's a corresponding fetish, thus causing it to exist.

"typing in invisible ink today" is a keeper, perhaps as t3it?

Ditto the whoa on the shared bank account. Molly and I didn't have a shared bank account until we bought our first house--a while after our first child was born.

Isn't there also a case to be made that the world would be better off if nobody wore makeup, and therefore one should act is ways to discourage others from wearing makeup? (In that case, presumably, ogged should date women who wear makeup, but that's a separate issue)

Obviously making the argument that the world would be better if nobody wore makeup is somewhat difficult and, therefore, the motivation to discourage others from using makeup should be weaker than the motivation to treat others decently, so it wouldn't be a deciding factor in most situations, but that it could represent acting out of a legitimate belief.

9: only in some contexts. And there it is *not* a good predictor of what Ogged claimed.

I think ogged's description was not invulnerable to different interpretations, but I'm not sure what would have been. I think people are harping too much on "character," especially seeing it in reference to "Character." And--while, again, I haven't met ogged--I'm not sure that being ruled out as a mate is quite the tragedy that people seem to be implying. I'm pretty sure he won't fuck me, but I'm managing to get on with life.

I was also surprised at the shared bank account.

BTW, was LB teasing ogged about this recently, because if so I missed that thread.

In fact (if I may go on about a topic that no one else is going on about) our relationship followed this hierarchy of levels of commitment, which I think everyone should follow. From lowest level of commitment to highest:

1. Have sex
2. Live together
3. Purchase expensive appliances together.
4. By a new car together.
5. Mix our record collections into one big record collection.
6. Have children
7. Buy a house & share a bank account.

I think I'd have to get married between Rob's 3rd and 4th steps, just to make sure my committment was going to be matched.

And 5 never happens.

Oh wait, getting married, I forgot that! We got married between steps 2 & 3. That step, call it 2.5, also included "moving long distances for the sake of your partner's job."

Isn't there also a case to be made that the world would be better off if nobody wore makeup

I don't think there's nothing wrong with self-decoration per se, just the associated double standards.

We went 1, 2, 6, 7, 3 I never really had a meaningful record collection as such, and we've still never bought a new car, but the used car came last.

I don't think there's nothing wrong with self-decoration per se, just the associated double standards.

I'm being thick or you're being oblique; I suspect it's the former. I see two different standards applied by two different groups. I think. What are the double standards?

And speaking again to the double standards, a wise person once observed that gender equity isn't just (to take a specific instance) women free to wear slacks, but also men free to wear skirts. Every time ogged goes out wearing jeans, he lets down the brotherhood.

My then-girlfriend-now-wife and I started sharing a bank account as soon as we moved in together.

I find 2/15/18/19 completely baffling.

I'm always oblique, Tim. Letting other people unpack my comments is one of my defining faults.

I think the makeup rule, like almost any other shallow "I don't want to date people who make X consumer choice" rule, is stupid. I think things like character and honesty and communication skills matter more than blanket rules, and that people who set blanket rules--"I won't date someone without a college degree, I won't date someone who likes X music, I won't date someone who wears a beard"--in anything other than jest are being dumb.

Also the idea that "wearing makeup" constitutes an "incompatible lifestyle" is ridiculous.

All that said, I don't give a rat's ass who Ogged, or anyone else, dates or doesn't date. That's not the point. The point is, as McG says, that one's trivial tastes aren't anything *other* than trivial tastes. They certainly aren't valid criteria for passing judgment on other people.

WHICH Ogged said he wasn't doing, so fine. But a lot of the arguments defending his viewpoint here (or his right to have one) are doing so on the grounds that somehow it's valid to see X matter of taste as a legitimate mark of character, which is ridiculous (and kinda offensive).

Ogged should definitely use more relevant standards like "enjoys giving head."

I sometimes like it when the women who normally don't bother with makeup suddenly do wear it. Variety is nice.

Sharing bank accounts, on the other hand, is just wrong.

lets down the brotherhood

It's come to my attention that the altitude of his brotherhood would most likely be greater when wearing jeans.

I think any case that makeup is a public ill is going to be tenuous, but the essence of it would have to be that you are giving money / legitimacy to people (the fashion industry) who are actively supporting social norms that are injurious. You would need to show that most uses of makeup are explicitly rather tha contingently linked to gender double standards.

Alternately you could say that it is unjust that society confers inordinate rewards on attractive people and that, while people are not morally responsible for their innate physical attractiveness confering those unjust rewards on people who either aquire the skill to appear attractive or pay to be made attractive compounds the injustice and accentuates class distinctions. Also an argument that is balanced between being reasonable and being very, very tenuous.

17: I disagree. He said something about `not making a spectacle of yourself', or `not makeing yourself out to be an object to be viewed'. I'd say the only contexts in which a lack of makeup are a good predictor are the ones where it is done to be noticed. Otherwise, lousy predictor.

I jsut mixed our record collection last year, and it irks me no end. I may yet unmix it. The cognitive dissonance I get every time I'm looking for a Wire CD and come acros Steve Winwood just...I dunno, why would I put myself in this position where I have to risk questioning why I ever married this person with this bad musical taste, anytime I'm in the midst of engaging in the act of listening to good music?

35 - That's the joy of alphabetical order, though! Of course Guided By Voices are the secret bridge between the Gravediggaz and Helium, why do you ask?

16:

Obviously making the argument that the world would be better if nobody wore makeup is somewhat difficult

Yeah, slippery slope. Nothing wrong with self-adornment.

Which is why men should wear makeup sometimes if they feel like it! And earrings! And a skirt, even, if they feel like it!

Shocking, I know.

But a lot of the arguments defending his viewpoint here (or his right to have one) are doing so on the grounds that somehow it's valid to see X matter of taste as a legitimate mark of character, which is ridiculous (and kinda offensive).

Link?

Like, say, the specific post for this comment thread.

men free to wear skirts.

I'm willing to go part of the way and wear a utilikilt.

But it makes perfect sense to realize you aren't going to be compatible with everyone and to try to find those you have the best shot of being happy with in the long run.

Oh, yeah, B, I totally see what you mean.

Come on, a judgment about compatibility is a judgment about character. Not 'good person' or 'bad person' character, but 'what kind of a person are you really' character. And minor matters of taste don't tell you that.

a judgment about compatibility is a judgment about character

No, no, no. I'm not going to be relationship-compatible with a vegetarian, but only because we'd have to make separate dinners every night. It isn't a judgment on their character; I admire people who can forgo meat.

And minor matters of taste don't tell you that.

Maybe ogged's empirically wrong. In which case, sucks for him, but who cares? He has a pretty strong incentive to get it right, and if he doesn't--because apparently he's a total idiot--he hurts only himself.

Gee, I hope he's not smoking pot.

a judgment about compatibility is a judgment about character

Like Apo, I'm not seeing this.

Fair enough, but makeup isn't like that -- it hasn't necessarily got any significant practical effects.

42:

Let me insert something about the real world here:

We're in a world in which there are serious issues about class differences, income differentials, global warming, destruction of the planet, the breakdowm of democracy, rampant consumerism, and a general blinkering to the significance of all this.

For those who are increasingly concerned about this, in a deeply-felt way, matters of taste do matter.

Are you a blind, unthinking consumer? If you are, I don't want you. (For example.)

This is all about where you draw your lines. I have no idea what "what kind of person are you really" means if it doesn't also admit consideration of minor matters of taste.

I would not be destined to be with someone who decorated his place in neon. It wouldn't go with my driftwood. Not a minor matter of taste.

but makeup isn't like that -- it hasn't necessarily got any significant practical effects.

I can't swear to it, but I think the same can probably be said of not being able to fuck ogged. (Sorry, ogged.)

Are you a blind, unthinking consumer?

Totally. Not that I think was an issue for us, but I just like to be upfront.

Ditto 49. Also, I regularly fellate the patriarchy. On my knees.

Are you a blind, unthinking consumer? If you are, I don't want you.

Oh God. What do people even mean by this kind of thing? So judgmental. Maybe you can pick someone up in the NYRB personals.

And consume them blindly and unthinkingly.

Given the social reality that makes makeup wearing basically a prerequisite for most professional women at some point or another, insisting you won't date women who wear is really just another spin on the whiny schmibertarian IT guy who disdains neckties as "nooses" and goes on and on about "corpocracy", just with bonus misogyny.

On a related note, I recommend the short story "Liking What You See: A Documentary." by Ted Chiang

(collected in Stories of your Life and Others).

Or at least, defending the idea that not wearing makeup is a legitimate way to judge women is misogynist, yes.

55 to 53.

This is all about where you draw your lines. I have no idea what "what kind of person are you really" means if it doesn't also admit consideration of minor matters of taste.

I would not be destined to be with someone who decorated his place in neon. It wouldn't go with my driftwood. Not a minor matter of taste.

Minor matters of taste are the most important.

Tell me more about this driftwood...

Actually, does this mean Ogged wouldn't date Jessica Biel?

49 - 52:

You might all have to explain to me what's wrong with the "blind, unthinking consumer" phrase I used.

I thought it was pretty transparent.

Perhaps I was too earnest.

Has anyone ever been in a relationship with someone who had, for example, equally strong but diametrically opposed opinions about music? (Or literature, philosophy, visual arts, etc.) I think that might be hott in a way that, say, a perpetual argument about religion or politics would be usually damning. But aside from a strong divide between my ex and me over Zappa and Natalie Merchant, I've not lived it. (We also had a continuous and lively argument about whether Dylan covers were often or never better than the originals.)

Also, I couldn't be in a relationship with someone who just wasn't really into music seems more likely than I couldn't be in a relationship with someone who argued Beatles over Stones.

58: Jessica Biel wouldn't date Ogged! Which is part of the point I raised when I first posted this. Women in heels and makeup in non-formal situations aren't interested in me. Could be several reasons, but it's pretty true.

Or at least, defending the idea that not wearing makeup is a legitimate way to judge women is misogynist, yes.

As opposed to judging them by what, precisely? How much you would like it if ogged wanted to date them?

I don't care who he dates, or why. I'm just saying that feeling compelled to defend other people's arbitrary preferences as meaningful, in this instance, is ridiculous, and that being willing to agree that yes, makeup is a legitimate sign of a woman's innate character--as opposed to simply "I don't like it" or "eh, ime the anti-makeup chicks and I get along great" is misogynist.

19: True evidence of commitment is pulling duplicate books out of the bookcases and setting them aside to be donated to the library...

35: I just want to stir up the energy to alphabetise the 14 linear feet of record albums. This would be easier if I could decide whether to organise them by genre, era, or just by artist. Then there are the 45s and the 78s...

I gave up on the CDs long ago. They're scattered all over, tho' some of them are in albums. It's educational to flip through them; we appear to own things I don't remember buying, the Kid wouldn't have and the Biophysicist knows he didn't.

eh, ime the anti-makeup chicks and I get along great"

This is what he's saying.

And that's fine. We're not arguing with Ogged.

65: I think what B is objecting to is any explanation of this fact. As long as there's no stated reason for it it's ok.

Which isn't totally unreasonable, looking back some of my ventured explanations may be a little mysoginist.

Which is why men should wear makeup sometimes if they feel like it! And earrings! And a skirt, even, if they feel like it!

This isn't a bad idea, necessarily, but in fact, very few men have any idea how to do any of those things in a way that would accentuate their best features instead of making them look like a clown. They don't know how to do that because they lack the practice or experience that women have in these matters. But to learn, men would have to practice and spend money on adornments, which seems to be one of the contentious issues here. So why do men get a pass to be femmy consumers when women get criticized for holding the same attitudes

(You aren't making exactly this argument, I realize, but there's still a point here, I think)

66: At least, I'm not.

67: No, I'm not objecting to any explanation. I'm objecting to the explanations other people--people who are not Ogged!--are offering.

64: yikes; i've done a bookcase sort like that.

As for the CD's; managed to get a few hundreds of them in the same places, roughly, damned if I'm going to sort them.

And as for the vinyl: Slightly different, but I once met a guy whose books ( couple thousand, anyway) were organized first by number of words in title, then alpha by author if I recall correctly. I suppose you could try something like that.....

59: it sounds smidge affected, is all. The sort of thing that attracts poking.

Though looking deep into my soul, I think my explanations can be explained entirely by my hating cool people, and they have little to do with women at all. Men who wear cologne aren't people who I'd expect to make friends with.

69: I fail to see how

there is a huge difference between the statements "Women who wear makeup are doing something bad" and "I prefer to date women who don't wear makeup".

eh, ime the anti-makeup chicks and I get along great

53 it's not whiny usually, just sort of naive and pointless. They generally don't have to wear ties. Or bathe.

Speaking of mocking that type

In re: the substance of the thread:
Is judging women date-worthy or not based on their appearance misogynist? Wouldn't that be an even more reductive standard than whether she wears makeup?

72: I've long since come to the same conclusion.

74: Not really. There's nothing wrong with being attracted to whoever you're attracted to -- there are ways you can be an ass about it, but noticing appearences is something people do.

Taking 'makeup at all' as a negative, though (and yeah, SCMT, neither Ogged nor anyone else said what I'm about to say) sounds like "Yep, women get an incredible amount of pressure from society to conform to the feminine ideal. I'd prefer not to disassociate with any of them that (a) don't share my sense that femininity is just an intrinsically bad thing, or (b) even if they do share it, knuckled under to the pressure even a little." All makeup is, in our society, is a tag that you're a woman and you're complying, happily or not, with what society expects of women on some incredibly minor level -- anyone with a strong distaste for it on that basis looks like they might easily have a problem with women generally.

dis

And, you know, ogged is weirdly judgmental about enough different things that this is just another on the list. But if someone normal had a strong preference like that, I'd probably think ill of them.

Let's be honest here, too: if you think makeup wearing says something negative about the women who DO it (as opposed to something positive about the women who DON'T), what you think is some variation on "shallow, materialistic whore". Dress it up in fake feminism or anti-consumerism or jerkoff populism, but there it is.

and yeah, SCMT, neither Ogged nor anyone else said what I'm about to say)

Excellent. Can I just come out against genocide, while noting that none of the people who have been arguing against (I think) me have said anything about genocide?

57:

Minor matters of taste are the most important.

Tell me more about this driftwood...

A chunk of driftwood two feet long, about 8 inches wide, hung on the wall. It's underlit by the lamp next the couch, and casts a shadow. Whether anybody likes it or not, I care not.

The point is, Tim, if you think makeup use is good evidence that someone is not the sort of woman you'd be compatible with, your options are kind of either loon or misogynist. I'm perfectly willing to give Ogged credit for being a loon, but it's still interesting talking about what such a preference would mean if it were rationally motivated.

5. Mix our record collections into one big record collection.

I've been saving this one up for the next time someone gives me shit about not being married: "hey, we already merged our CD collections, which is more binding than any piece of paper could be."

if you think makeup wearing says something negative about the women who DO it (as opposed to something positive about the women who DON'T

That would be an awesome point if people hadn't repeatedly disclaimed precisely that intent. You can dress it up as fake feminism responding to an argument that is always implicit in the society in which we live, but let's be honest, you're just letting your neuroses off the chain.

Chill, Tim. We're not talking about you. We're not even talking about Ogged. We're just talking.

The point is, Tim, if you think makeup use is good evidence that someone is not the sort of woman you'd be compatible with, your options are kind of either loon or misogynist.

LB, you're being a bit impervious to reason on this. Why can't it be the case that for someone who cares about issues of dressing up, being on display, etc., the makeup thing is an important predictor/proxy of compatibility? Why is this even controversial?

74: What 76 said. Preferences are, of course, shaped by culture, but we can't totally isolate ourselves from that.

That said, the problem I have with Ogged's reasoning (and which I already wrote about in invisible ink over on the other thread) is that he's taking his preferences about his own self-presentation and then applying them to women, without taking into account that men and women aren't judged by the same standards. I wouldn't call Ogged's explanation misogynist so much as naive.

86: I think the point is that makeup is pretty clearly a bad proxy for (some of?) the things you were claiming it for. As a dating filter might work well for you though, so that's fine.

he's taking his preferences about his own self-presentation and then applying them to women, without taking into account that men and women aren't judged by the same standards

No, I'm not. Preferences for me own self-presentation include things like not wearing anything that's not black or dark blue, but my preferences for what women do are specific to them, like whether they wear makeup/heels or not, and in that case, they're being compared to other women, not to me. And again, the women I've dated haven't worn makeup, and some have been quite a bit more anti-makeup than I am, so this just doesn't seem so unusual or loony to me.

Because it's a minor matter where makeup use is absolutely conventional. You sound like a Quaker judging someone for being cravenly lickspittle when they use 'you' instead of 'thou', when they haven't ever heard of the Quakers or their position on the second person plural.

Wearing makeup habitually doesn't say a blessed thing about your character or psychology at all. I don't, and I need about five biographical accidents (my coloring, the fact that my mother has the same coloring so she never really figured it out properly either, general untidiness, being really alienated from my peer group at the age when people start playing with this shit) on top of being kind of butch to get to the point that I don't. Wearing makeup at least every so often is a strong societal default for women, not an expression of a character trait (desire for 'display' or otherwise), and taking it as an expression of a character trait is about as loony as my hypothetical Quaker taking the usage of 'you' over 'thou' as evidence that you're snivelingly subservient.

makeup is pretty clearly a bad proxy for (some of?) the things you were claiming it for

Dios mio, and I say this not to you specifically, but to everyone, how the fuck do you know?? How do you know what I've noticed about people who do or don't wear makeup? This seems pretty clearly more important to me than to most of you, so wouldn't it stand to reason that there are details that I'm attentive to that you're not?

In other words, not wearing make-up is poor shorthand for not being fru-fru.

some have been quite a bit more anti-makeup than I am

Not liking it on themselves, or using it as a criterion to judge whether other women would be compatible as friends? I'm going to guess the former.

Some didn't like to wear it, some thought less of other women for wearing it.

I must suggest here that it's entirely possible that in ogged's locale that makeup/not makeup *is* a good, empirically sound indicator, and that in the locale of others who are against ogged in the debate, that it is *not*. Haven't we already gone over this? Ogged thinks NY is a hellhole.

I don't, and I need about five biographical accidents (my coloring, the fact that my mother has the same coloring so she never really figured it out properly either, general untidiness, being really alienated from my peer group at the age when people start playing with this shit) on top of being kind of butch to get to the point that I don't.

Maybe it's those five (or six) characteristics, or some subset there of, for which he is sorting. I can see "alienated from peer group at age X," "general untidiness," and "being kind of butch," as things that might usefully get at compatibility. I don't think he's claimed it's an absolute rule, and I know he's said it's one of many factors he might look at. Maybe he includes "Never seen Family Circus." I don't think that tells you a ton about someone's big "C" character, but it might skew towards the "likely to end up in Gitmo," which he might like.

At all, or lots? There's a big difference between commenting on self-presentation that you think is overstated or in poor taste, and commenting on the use of cosmetics at all.

Preferences for me own self-presentation include things like not wearing anything that's not black or dark blue,

OK, this explains a lot.

but my preferences for what women do are specific to them, like whether they wear makeup/heels or not, and in that case, they're being compared to other women, not to me.

But isn't there at least an element of projection, e.g., "if I were a woman and put on a little lipstick, I'd feel like the Whore of Babylon? Therefore, a woman who wears lipstick is trying to draw attention to herself."

There's a big difference for many people between the criteria you apply to what makes someone a good person, what makes someone a compatible friend, and what you want in someone you would date. And applying a rule like "I prefer to date women who don't wear makeup" or "I prefer to date men who aren't into fashion" might cause you to miss some good catches or people with values more similar to you than you think. But it makes perfect sense to realize you aren't going to be compatible with everyone and to try to find those you have the best shot of being happy with in the long run.

What Becks said.

96: 'Kind of butch' is clearly on Ogged's list, and there's nothing wrong with that. The other qualities are really too accidental to come together as a coherent character-type identified by non-makeup wearing.

If I'm understanding 97 correctly, the answer is that the ones who objected objected on principle and not to the tastefulness of application.

you're being a bit impervious to reason on this

That's a keeper.

From what I can tell, LB is so east coast, and so corporate or whatever, that she considers a distaste for makeup use irrational.

I can't take this seriously any more.

For not being [i]femme[/i], really.

I'm somewhere in the nebuluous territory between "androgynous" and "butch", and I still have to wear makeup an awful lot more than I'd like, and I work for a studio that makes videogames, and where people used to routinely smoke up in the basement.

Are Ogged's ex-girlfriends all butch dykes who run their own wildly successful web 2.0 companies, or commune-dwelling trustafarians, or fundamentalist Christians of the bonnet-wearing sort, or something?

90: I know this is turning into lots of teh anger, but I just wanted to say, LB, that you are totally the Bizarro-High-Powered-Coastal-Version of me--I've never encountered a straightish woman besides myself who spontaneously describes herself as "butch". Eerie.

I was thinking about this make-up discussion last night, and it occurred to me that while I tend to assume that I frown (quelle surprise, right?) on women who wear make-up, actually many of my friends wear make-up and I don't much care. Make-up doesn't give them major patriarchy-priviledges that I can see.

There are certainly women who wear make-up for whom the make-up is part of a lifestyle and a set of attitudes that I dislike, but that's a completely different issue and it's easy to pick those women out (they're off clubbing baby seals and drinking the blood of illegal immigrants to preserve their youth, most of the time).

90: I know this is turning into lots of teh anger, but I just wanted to say, LB, that you are totally the Bizarro-High-Powered-Coastal-Version of me--I've never encountered a straightish woman besides myself who spontaneously describes herself as "butch". Eerie.

I was thinking about this make-up discussion last night, and it occurred to me that while I tend to assume that I frown (quelle surprise, right?) on women who wear make-up, actually many of my friends wear make-up and I don't much care. Make-up doesn't give them major patriarchy-priviledges that I can see.

There are certainly women who wear make-up for whom the make-up is part of a lifestyle and a set of attitudes that I dislike, but that's a completely different issue and it's easy to pick those women out (they're off clubbing baby seals and drinking the blood of illegal immigrants to preserve their youth, most of the time).

102: West Coast (Bay Area no less!), out butch lesbian, ex-science monkey who now codes physics engines for the gaming industry. There, does my opinion get to be rational now?

90, well, but wait, it clearly does express a character trait: the implicit idea that the hypothetical non-makeup-weareer is willing to accept the trade-offs and social judgements involved in NOT wearing makeup tells something or other about her. Whether that something is relevant or important doesn't seem obvious to me, but I'm not ogged. But it does reflect something. Unless you're saying that people choose to wear makeup or not for no reason at all, which I don't think you are.

102: There's a difference between having a distate for makeup and making broad assumptions about character based on makeup use. I'm a non-corporate West Coaster and even I can see that.

Shouldn't the uncertainty of whether 95 is true keep us from judging ogged?

It's gotten to the point where I'm dying to meet you sometime, partially because it would be fun, but largely to find out if we're actually second cousins or something.

LB, you're being a bit impervious to reason on this.

Sexist trope! Sexist trope!

Oops about the double-post.

It's amazing to me how much anger this matter of make-up creates. I thought my quick-tempered feminist harridanism made me an outlier on this, but I guess not.

Why, folks? Why? This happens at other blogs or glogs or groggys or whatever too.

91: I don't know what you've noticed, or haven't noticed. But using makeup is so ubiquitous the mere fact of it doesn't correllate strongly with almost anything. Unless you are talking really really niche identifications, which you don't seem to be. Maybe you are, I don' t know.

Even in the negative sense, a woman deciding to not wear makeup isn't a very good correlate for much; too much variation. When you say stuff like (paraphrased) `setting herself up as an object for view', my reaction was that that could be wearing makeup. or it could be not wearing makeup. It just isn't a good predictor for the sorts of things you seemed to be claiming it was.

I'm totally willing to belived that `not wearing makeup' plus `a bunch of other stuff' may correlate well, so could even work well as a predictor for you. But to claims like above that I understood you to be making? I call bullshit.

There are certainly women who wear make-up for whom the make-up is part of a lifestyle and a set of attitudes that I dislike

My understanding is that you cannot credibly make this claim. The other stuff--clubbing baby seals, and the like--sure, but the makeup means nothing. (Mostly not snark.)

Are Ogged's ex-girlfriends all butch dykes who run their own wildly successful web 2.0 companies, or commune-dwelling trustafarians, or fundamentalist Christians of the bonnet-wearing sort, or something?

I gather you find something wildly odious about this set of people, and those who would find them attractive. Kind of judgmental. I'm not sure you should read character from people's preferences like that.

Oops about the double-post.

It's amazing to me how much anger this matter of make-up creates. I thought my quick-tempered feminist harridanism made me an outlier on this, but I guess not.

Why, folks? Why? This happens at other blogs or glogs or groggys or whatever too.

110 to 105.

95, 109: Eh, anything's possible. But I think 'makeup at least sometimes' is a pretty strong default nationwide.

107: That point's been brought up a lot. Everyone (except Tim and, to some extent, parsimon) is just saying that this method of finding the traits Ogged is claiming to look for will be far too harsh of a sieve, since most women will wear makeup at least some times regardless of their personalities and characters. Unless Ogged likes licking his date's faces and really hates the taste of makeup, there's almost no rational reason to apply this criterion above and beyond what you find from just talking to the dates.

And let's face it, when it comes to dating, Ogged really shouldn't be shaking down the pool of potentials any more than necessary.

114, read 106. Unless your browser is blanking out every 3rd comment or something.

90, what is your coloring? Because I suspect we have similar issues. Let's bond in our oppression.

117: Well, so maybe it's important enough to him that he is really only interested in the committed holdouts. It's not rational, per se, but who ever said that attraction was rational.

118: ... I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're both very pale, and either red-headed or that kind of very dark black/brown that's actually flaming red under the right light. Close?

95: Yeah, but someone claimed Bay area for that, and it doesn't work. Not unless it's some highly constrained neighborhood not like the rest of the place. I mean, there is less makeup use on the west coast, and more of it is subtle (mistaken for none at all?) but it's still pretty ubiqutous.

114: I don't think so...I mean, I know this woman who really, really loves to shop a lot and who exhorts her husband to work harder in order to get more money for her to shop with. (And I'm totally serious, she says this.) She really prioritizes the whole expensive girlie package regardless of its personal, financial or social cost. Because I know a bunch of stuff about her, I know how she thinks of her (expensive, constantly supplemented) make-up. If I passed her on the street, I wouldn't know this.

In fact, I'm doing the reverse of judging her character by her appearance; I'm judging her appearance by her character. When I see her all gussied up, I know it's not because of work, or stuff she paid for herself, or in any way part of a socially responsible lifestyle. And I'm not a big fan of people who like getting stuff more than they like anything else. But those folks are really pretty rare--you genuinely don't encounter them every day.

I need to leave the computer now, though.

114, read 106. Unless your browser is blanking out every 3rd comment or something.

I'm not seeing how it answers anything. She says there is a set of people who ogged's rule might code for, and it's a bad rule. She doesn't say she is in that group, though I'm not sure sure what it would tell us if she was.

118: Actually, I'm being vain rather than the reverse. Way back in the other thread I noted that the easy esthetic gain you get from makeup is an increase in contrast -- someone with pretty features, but low-contrast skin/lips/brows/lashes looks amazingly different and more attractive with a little color here and there. I'm ordinary looking, but contrasty -- dark brows and lashes, and pale/pink/red skin and lips. So I don't get that "OMG, I'm so much prettier with a little help" kick that someone with different coloring does.

117: Exactly; and it isn't like not-ever-wearing makeup doesn't tell you something (tautologically); it just doesn't predict those things Ogged is claiming in the general population.

He can be perfectly happy with a coarse sieve; he just can't reasonably claim it isnt' throwing out loads of people with the properties he is using the no-makeup as proxy for.

But hell, this has gone `round so many times i'm not even sure I remember the original claims (and I'm too lazy to check)

119: Fair enough, I just really can't imagine a good personality thread connecting the people who would be hardcore hold-outs against makeup (apart from stubbornness, but there are better ways to find that). So all I can figure out that seems plausible is that Ogged hates makeup itself.

Either Mary Kay beat him as a child, or he really despises the feel & taste of makeup.

He can be perfectly happy with a coarse sieve; he just can't reasonably claim it isnt' throwing out loads of people with the properties he is using the no-makeup as proxy for.

I believe he's said that.

I only date women who bleach their assholes.

Do they just throw Clorox on you, or what?

I think people get angry about it because there are few people who can object to it without implying that women who wear it, even sometimes, are bimbos. E.g., 102. Contrariwise, people who argue that makeup "just makes you look better" or the like frustrate women who don't wear it because the pro-makeup arguments often imply that women who don't wear makeup are frumpy harridans.

It's like any other women's issue: having kids vs. not having them, staying home vs. working, shaving vs. not shaving, wtever. All it takes is one or two people insisting that it's *not* a political issue, and one or two others insisting that not only is it political, but anyone who disagrees is a Bad Woman/Bad Feminist, and yeah, people are going to get their backs up.

(Not meant personally, of course. But it was sitting there.)

Anyway, it's not as if I'm actively excluding people, but I probably am unconciously, and it has been the case that all my girlfriends have eschewed the stuff.

(Not meant personally, of course. But it was sitting there.)

Was good enough to make me laugh out loud.

132: You ARE actively excluding people! And it makes you a bad person! You should be open to the beauty within, Ogged!

Aha! Yeah, I get exactly what you're saying. I'm sort of the same way, and I think it's why I get away with wearing as little makeup as I do. If my lips were a little darker, I could probably forgo lipstick entirely.

108:

From 90: "Wearing makeup at least every so often is a strong societal default for women"

A default? Only in certain, limited societal settings, for god fucking's sake.

GIVEN that LB lives in such a setting, sure, what she says may make sense. The point is that she might want to get out more, or something.

It would sure suck to live in a place where wearing makeup is the norm, to the extent that women who decide not to flagellate themselves.

But Frowner is right, there is too much anger here. I'm being overblown myself.

136 is nonsense. It's *not* wearing makeup that's only a default--or non-weird--option in limited settings in this country.

she might want to get out more, or something.

With a blog like this, who has time?

Seriously, I believe people wear less makeup on the West Coast: I'm just guessing that most women still own some, and wear it sometimes.

It would sure suck to live in a place where wearing makeup is the norm

Like the USA?

Seriously, I believe people wear less makeup on the West Coast: I'm just guessing that most women still own some, and wear it sometimes.

Makeup was certainly the norm in So Cal where I grew up.

138: LB: They wear less (LA notwithstanding), they don't not wear it, generally speaking.

It really depends, you guys. In LA, there are a LOT of women who don't wear makeup. And it's not just the coast: Denver, New Mexico, etc. A lot of who does and who doesn't has to do with class and other, more subtle social niches: education level, income, hobbies, etc.

It's like any other women's issue: having kids vs. not having them, staying home vs. working, shaving vs. not shaving, wtever. All it takes is one or two people insisting that it's *not* a political issue, and one or two others insisting that not only is it political, but anyone who disagrees is a Bad Woman/Bad Feminist, and yeah, people are going to get their backs up.

Maybe that's it. I should probably say that I don't think makeup--even lots and lots of it, or femme-ness, or super-femme-ness--codes very well for Bad Woman/Bad Feminist. Or even for "superficial" or "airhead." I'm not 100% sure what those words would mean in the context of a relationship. I am sure that I've never dated anyone who never wore it or who thought it was a sin. And I continue to maintain that not being given the opportunity to fuck ogged, like stomach cancer, is unfortunate but survivable.

Somehow, you've made me feel like an ass, B, even though I don't think I'm wrong. So like a woman.

A very talented woman.

I should probably say that I don't think makeup--even lots and lots of it, or femme-ness, or super-femme-ness--codes very well for Bad Woman/Bad Feminist. Or even for "superficial" or "airhead."

Then why are we arguing? This is the point I've been trying to make.

It really depends, you guys. In LA, there are a LOT of women who don't wear makeup. And it's not just the coast: Denver, New Mexico, etc.

Well yeah, but I can't ever recall a time (aside from things like rock climbing) where I've been out and about and the overwhelming majority of women weren't wearing makeup.

142: Sure, but this is true everywhere (I mean that there are other indicators better than mere geographical location). What I meant is that while I agree it's probably true that more women wear more makeup more often on the east coast than the west, say, it simply isn't true that women do not commonly wear makeup on the west coast, generally speaking.

I wasn't claiming they'll throw you out of LA if you don't wear enough. Just that in my limited experience (of LA) it's a lot more prevalent than say SF, or SJ, or portland, or seattle, etc.

"Then why are we arguing?"

What else is the internet for?

146 and 7: Oh, absolutely. Just feeling the need to point out that the stereotype that everyone in So Cali has fake boobs and hair extensions isn't true; there are a lot of outdoorsy hippie types as well.

120, 124: Dead on with the coloring, plus I have the added bonus of eyelashes that are dark, but pale at the roots, which is almost impossible to cover up with mascara and makes eyeliner look kind of freakish on me. Also, if I don't wear foundation I'm too ruddy, and if I do, people ask me if I'm feeling ok. (I could probably fix that with blush, but I resist, partly because it's hard to get right and partly because I'm trying to get rid of the red, so why would I put more on?)

148: Marital drama. Duh.

About the joint account that seems to have shocked everyone -- this was a special circumstance. I'd never done it before or since. We were working at the same job, earning the same amount, all of our expenses were shared, and there was pretty much no money left over each month after rent, utilities, entertainment, and food. It made more sense than each paying for half of the bills.

So, I hate you all, but maybe we should have a Bay Area meetup; seems like there are quite a few of you around now.

Hold up on the Bay Area meetup! I'll be there shortly, to hate all of you in person.

I'm so there. I'll be sure to clean out Sephora beforehand.

152: Yeah, when I was the working one we had just one account because there was no money left over and we didn't want to pay an additional $2.50/month to have separate ones. I couldn't spend anything without making sure we could afford it anyway.

Of course, it's taken us about six months or more to get back into the whole having-separate-money thing.

When, Smashman?

I'll come, and I'll make sure to wear makeup *and* heels. Shit, maybe I'll even splash out and get a manicure.

Unfogged spa day!

Let's also all plan to talk loud and say "dahling!" a lot to draw attention to our group.

Details to come, but I'm curating a show (!), so I have to fly out to California soon to select the works by the artist. The artist lives in Santa Barbara, but I'm going to extend my trip for a visit. I don't yet have the dates for the show, but I'll be flying sooner anyway so that I can put a claim on the artist's stuff.

Congrats, dude. Just let me know the date when you find out.

Oh ho, Santa Barbara? That's just up the road from me.

Cool, B. I need to be there for a couple days to do studio visits, but I'll going to have nothing to do in the evenings, so I'd be up for the long-awaited Santa Barbara Meetup. I'll ping you when I have some details.

I'll be sure to clean out Sephora beforehand.

I thought only guys named their junk.

164: Very good. I assume your expenses are being covered, but if you need a place to stay, we're easily within commuting distance.

Hey, anyone going to be around San Diego in late June?

165 wins the thread.

There were tentative plans for a bay area meetup around the time of the pacific APA, I think. Smasher, when'll you be out here?

167: Hm, I have friends visiting June 21-28, but if you're in SD before or after that, I might could be asked to drive down and have a drink witcha.

170: The conference is 6/27-30. I haven't made arrangements yet, but may be tempted to stick around 7/1 doing tourist stuff and come home Monday. How far away are you?

Couple hundred miles.

158: It would be more fun if Ogged wore make-up and heels...

Yikes, that's a haul. Can you tell I don't know shit about SoCal geography?

Barring sudden employment changes (which I'm hoping for, but goddamn is this taking a long time), I'll be back in DC for about 4 days at the beginning of May. Anyone up for a trip to Ben's Chili Bowl and a cocktail or two?

174: SoCal geography means a couple hundred miles is doable. What the hell.

OK, cool, will keep in touch as it gets closer. Looks like I'm probably the only one from my immediate office who's going, so I should be pretty flexible.

Didn't Belle Waring or somebody write an essay a little while back about how most men don't even know which women wear makeup, and that "I like women who don't wear makeup" really means "I like women whose makeup successfully achieves the no-makeup-but-flawless-skin look"?

Where's the duck? And the $50?

178: If she didn't, she should have. What I find amusing is the idea that any one particular "proxy" is any sort of good predictor of compatibility. Given any glimpse of six inches of anyone's bookshelves, would that make a good predictor? Around the Biohazard domain, absolutely not.

If its ok to have a rule that says "I only date women who don't wear makeup"

is it ok to have a rule of "I only date women who wear makeup (and wear uncomfortable shoes and depilate most of their body regularly and make their hair all curly and etc etc)? I mean that seems to be criticized here pretty often.

"Yeah, slippery slope. Nothing wrong with self-adornment.

Which is why men should wear makeup sometimes if they feel like it! And earrings! And a skirt, even, if they feel like it!"

The odd thing is that (in that specific dating context) men are punished for this, at least if the adornment is more than slightly outside of gender norms (such as wearing a pastel shirt or slightly snug jeans). And don't get me started on the fact that women can wear sleevless garments to the office and formally, while men are always in longsleeve shirts&jackets

Holla, Choppa.

Dunno quite yet, Ben. Probably late April, possibly mid-May.

And don't get me started on the fact that women can wear sleevless garments to the office and formally, while men are always in longsleeve shirts&jackets

Don't get ME started on it. It's impossible to find a cocktail dress these days that does have sleeves, and I desperately want one.

heh. What the hell is a cocktail dress?

Which is apparently identifiable in such a way that you say: hey, none of these have sleeves!

Magpie, check out Esprit's spring collection. I got a great one there.

185: Thanks!

184: A "dressy" dress, but short of formal.

and I desperately want one

Jeebus. Why?

Um, because sometimes one doesn't want to wear a sleeveless dress, for whatever reason. Like maybe it's cold, or one doesn't like the way one's upper arms look, or it's difficult to get a sleeveless dress that your bra won't show through the armholes, or whatever.

I have a lovely vintage silk cocktail dress I got at a yard sale, actually. It's got long sleeves that need cufflinks and a foofy knee-length skirt. Fabulous find.

Like maybe it's cold, or one doesn't like the way one's upper arms look, or it's difficult to get a sleeveless dress that your bra won't show through the armholes, or whatever.

Sweater, therapy, commando.

Thanks Tim, I'll be turning to you next time I need advice on what to wear. Stand by.

"Um, because sometimes one doesn't want to wear a sleeveless dress, for whatever reason. Like maybe it's cold, or one doesn't like the way one's upper arms look, or it's difficult to get a sleeveless dress that your bra won't show through the armholes, or whatever."

Alcohol is the answer here. Two glasses of wine and it wont matter anymore.

Thanks Tim, I'll be turning to you next time I need advice on what to wear. Stand by.

I live to serve, B. You know that.

Huh. Had you pegged as more a receiving kind of guy.

Just as sometimes to give is to receive, so sometimes to catch is to pitch. That may have been what confused you.

Just don't step away from the computer, Tim. I'll need your advice any minute now.

195: Don't worry, B. I'm already on it: I'm imagining what you look like and then imagining a series of different outfits on imaginary-B. Who knew they made skirts that short?

That's a shawl, Tim.

Sweater, therapy, commando.

There are upper arms that you probably don't want to see bared. Likewise, there are boobs that you probably don't want to see going commando. The idea is to look elegant, not like a fishwife.

The idea is to look elegant, not like a fishwife

Ah, this is slightly more informative about what a cocktail dress is.

Of course, I always look elegant. It's the habitual dangly earrings, I tell ya.

A cocktail dress is a dress suitable for wear at a cocktail party, even if that isn't actually the event you're planning to wear it to, and indeed even if you have never encountered an actual cocktail party in your life.

The idea is to look elegant, not like a fishwife

Note the sleeves.

200: ?!?!? If you've never encountered a cocktail party, then for heaven's sake, throw one. They're fun.

It's a fancy dress that's less than formal; usually short. I'm not sure where the cocktails come into it, exactly; does anyone go to cocktail parties and wear little dresses?

And for some reason it's very hard to find one with sleeves that is still a youthful dress.

In part, because they do no not involve jumping off of roofs or setting fires or anything like that.

I've encountered cocktail parties, though as Cala indicates, they are not as common as they used to be.

204: The sleeves or the parties? I've been to parties where I've had cocktails and engaged in cocktailish conversation, but everyone was in suits.

203: I find this is true. The one I got at Esprit, though, is black, belted a little higher than waist level with an A-line below that, built-in slip. The top V's in about two inches below the bottom of the boobs (I've worn it with and without a camisole, the latter to the great distraction of my hosts), and the collar and sleeves resemble a nice 3/4-length dress shirt.

Yep. I had a hell of a time buying a dress for my niece's wedding in January that threaded the fine line between hoochie and gramma. (I couldn't find sleeves, but managed something that was just sleeveless, not strappy.)

I almost commented that the options were "sleeveless" or "yes, the bride is my granddaughter and I wore this outfit on my recent fall colors cruise."

And it's weird because dainty sleeves can be really cute, and there's no reason a woman shouldn't be able to find a cocktail dress in November that has sleeves. (Unlike LB, I went the hoochie route with a strapless dress at the winter wedding I attended. If I couldn't find sleeves, I was going to be hott.)

This excludes cap sleeves, which are evil evil evil, as they are only flattering if you have a tiny upper arm, but only compelling as a style to those who wish to cover their upper arms.

Hey, LB, were you at the Met this afternoon?

Where do y'all shop? Aren't you guys in major cities? Where there are like little independent boutiques and stuff? B/c that's where you find nice dresses--the stuff at department stores is vile.

"Little independent boutiques" mean spending over $500 and having to deal with snotty boutiquey retail people, at least in NYC.

I could totally rock that fishwife look in 201.

212: Bah, then NYC sucks, b/c one of the things I love about independent stores is that often the clothes are better made and cost less, and the owner/designer usually seems really glad to have customers. Plus, free alterations most of the time.

Barring sudden employment changes (which I'm hoping for, but goddamn is this taking a long time)

Update: Now looking more likely! I got a call this afternoon--I have to do a phone interview with the president of the company tomorrow.

April Fools.

Hey would any of you New Yorkers like to visit the Judy Chicago show at the Brooklyn Museum on (Good) Friday afternoon? I and mine will be there. Looks like an interesting show. Also there will be an opportunity to take in the work of Maplewood, NJ's favorite son.

("interesting" s/b "yonic")

211: Cute little boutiques don't carry my size.

Also, 201: not a cocktail dress. You'l have to look harder.