Why racism lingers in the cosmetics aisle.

Many females of Asian, African, Latin American, and Arab descent learn early on that the more European you look, the better. Many cosmetic companies have worked hard to profit from this, providing women of color with toxic “solutions” for having the shade of skin they were born with.

Take skin lightening. Some might compare its harmful effects to tanning and say this is simply a case of people wanting what they don’t have. But the desire to have fair skin is deeper than that and has a much more damaging history stemming from internalized racism, a nasty place that rarely seems to be understood or even acknowledged.

On a recent trip to India, I was impressed by the way the country has sustained its culture despite Westernization and standards imposed upon it by British colonialists. Most local women I came across regularly wore traditional attire and as I rode through the countryside, I saw virtually every male wearing a khadi, homespun garb promoted by Gandhi as a way for people to boycott British products and return to using domestic-made goods. Ever since British rule ended in India in the late 1940s, the country has been renaming its cities to bring them back to their original Indian pronunciations and spellings.

But despite all of the preservation of culture in modern day India, the notion that fair skin is superior – which can largely be attributed to a history of lighter skinned people invading and ruling India – has been feverishly sustained and even expanded to encompass men. Ruthless advertising has further promoted the idea that lighter skin will get you the job you want, a significant other, and generally make all your dreams come true. While some of the most vomit-inducing commercials have been banned from Indian airwaves, there is still an abundance of advertising that needs no translation to show that companies that sell skin lightening products are capitalizing on a popular idea in India that a light complexion leads to a better life. These companies know: white sells.

While India’s issues with skin lightening are fresh examples, this is certainly not the only culture where people have held onto the idea that white is right. Amongst the youth of color I work with, it is not uncommon to hear the word “dark” being used as an insult or to hear a young black male include “light-skinned” on a list of the most desirable attributes of a female he’s interested in.

The acceptance and lack of questioning of this mentality regularly perplexes me. Beyond the obvious – that lingering racism gives an advantage to those in the United States who have white skin – it seems that many have forgotten, are unaware of, or choose to ignore the origins of color discrimination within black American communities: white slave owners forcing themselves upon black female slaves. The “light-skinned” offspring that resulted from this exploitation often had an advantage over their more African-looking counterparts, especially as slavery waned in the United States. Almost 150 years after the end of slavery, an archaic “lighter is better” mindset is still widely accepted, whether it is articulated or not.

In addition to matters of skin tone, black females with tightly curled tresses are likely to be inculcated with the notion that their hair in its natural state is unmanageable – and bad. Many black girls are taught this at a young age, and before they can get to know their hair, many of them have had it straightened with a toxic chemical relaxer. These chemicals sink into the scalp; these harmful ideas sink into impressionable minds. It can take years to undo the physical, psychological, and let’s not forget environmental damage, that is, if it is reversed at all.

If a black woman decides to present herself as she is, she will still have to learn how to explain herself when she inevitably comes across an ethnophobe; she may be informed that her appearance is an outdated relic of the failed “black is beautiful” movement in the sixties.

This mentality is deeply harmful in communities with a history of racism and oppression, but the idea that there’s a singular beauty standard for all women to achieve is rife in our world, regardless of a culture’s history. The solutions to such invented problems are, quite literally, toxic – not just emotionally but environmentally, as well. For women, there is always something to “fix.”

Images: Greg Westfall, Dainis Matisons, Spiralsheep

The post White Sells, and It’s Toxic appeared first on EcoSalon.

Lately, I’ve come to think of the sun as a bad relationship. First we’re supposed to stay away from it for our own health. Then we think about jumping back in for short-term visits – just a few minutes a day can’t hurt, right? Next we start questioning our use of protection. And now, for some of us, new information reveals that we’re never able to really say goodbye. Yes, sun equals bad boyfriend!

Nonetheless, people are progressively tanning. Flip on MTV, and you’ve got the so-called Jersey Shore kids (aren’t they all well into their 20s?) sporting skin hues something akin to pumpkin orange. But it turns out that some over-zealous tanners just may not be able to help themselves. New evidence shows that tanning may be as addictive as any substance – and that the medical community is considering “tanning addiction” as a new diagnostic category.

For many of us, tanning addiction rings true. I had a friend in high school, let’s call her Jessica, who proudly sported a year-long tan. After a trip to the beach, she came back with a sun burn so bad she had to wrap her blistered forearms in gauze. Before the scabs were even healed, Jessica was laying out in her backyard hoping to turn her newly-pink skin back into a Hawaiian Tropic glow. Why? Because she felt like she “had” to be tanned.

Now it turns out Jessica’s need may have been beyond her control. As the New York Times reports, this year alone, 3.5 million people will be diagnosed with skin cancer. And it is not likely due to a lack of education about the dangers of UV exposure. A new study from the Skin Cancer Foundation Journal shows that “tanners also report mood enhancement, relaxation and socialization.” They also found that frequent tanners “showed signs of both physiological and psychological dependence.” In other words, some people react to tanning the ways addicts react to alcohol and drugs.

Dr. Richard F. Wagner Jr., a dermatologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, has worked on diagnosing tanning addiction. He modified a list of questions used to determine alcohol addiction in terms of tanning. These questions form an acronym called CAGE. As the NY Times reports, these questions are: Have you ever felt you needed to cut down on your tanning? Have people annoyed you by criticizing your tanning? Have you ever felt guilty about tanning? Have you ever felt you needed to tan first thing in the morning – as an eye opener? Answer yes to any of these questions, and you may have an addiction to tanning. Dr. Wagner further points out that the endorphins released from tanning are likely what causes people to over-bake. Other researchers have found evidence that frequent tanners react to “lack of tanning” much as addicts react to withdraw.

So will tanning soon be regarded as an addictive substance warranting regulation? Yes, if the medical community can make it so. What can the rest of us do? Spread the word of awareness – and keep our own skin tones from matching up with Halloween.

For further reading: When Tanning Turns into an Addiction

Image: psycherika

The post The Dark Truth Behind Tanning Addiction appeared first on EcoSalon.

It’s the end of June already, and the earth’s half-spin around the sun has brought us ladies plenty to wring our delicate little hands about. From Iranian clerics blaming earthquakes on our breasts to oil spills wreaking havoc on our pregnancies, 2010 has made us reach for the smelling salts on numerous occasions. Here at EcoSalon, we’ve covered women and the environment with vim, bringing you celebratory communiques alongside melancholic missives. Below, you’ll find a roundup of the news in 2010 thus far. If the past six months are any indication, the rest of the year will be a doozy. Feeling faint yet?

• Is GINK the new DINK? It used to be that childfree couples were called DINKs – Double Income, No Kids. But the great American greenwash has influenced reproductive choices as well, with an increasing number of couples citing the environment as a reason to go kidless. A recent study by Oregon State University added fuel to the fire, revealing that not having kids is 20 times more environmentally friendly than any other day to day green task, like recycling. Lisa Hymas of Grist coined the term GINK – Green Inclinations, No Kids – to describe childfree tree huggers like herself.

• Condoms came under attack earlier this year, with women’s health writers and scientists bemoaning the prophylactic’s sorry environmental record of sullying our beaches and clogging up our landfills. While greensters wondered whether condoms are biodegradable (likely not – their decomposable latex is mixed with human-made chemicals), we asked another question: why have this conversation in the first place? Condoms, as a blogger at EcoGeek noted, are “the single most important environmental innovation” ever, curbing environmentally-catastrophic population growth.

• Congress attacked killer chemicals this spring when members of the House and Senate introduced versions of the Safe Chemicals Act, a bill meant to fortify a toothless, decades-old law against allowing dangerous chemicals in household products (we all know how well that one worked…hello bisphenol-a). Uteruses in America rejoiced at the news: the Safe Chemicals Act is a boon to women, whose reproductive systems have been under siege by infertility-causing chemicals in water bottles and other plastics.

• In April, an Iranian cleric asserted that women who don’t cover up cause earthquakes. His declaration–meant to dissuade Iranian women from unveiling–ignited a response in the U.S., when blogger Jennifer McCreight organized a Boobquake, a day in which women wore low-cut tops without tectonic incident to prove the cleric wrong. But what could have been a bold political stunt turned into a ho-hum protest, with men egging on their breast-baring peers while feminists complained that the plight of Iranian women became fodder for a Girls Gone Wild spectacle.

• As if the earthquake itself didn’t cause enough damage, sexual violence rates spiked in Haiti in the months after the disaster. According to an article in Women’s eNews, aid workers in a major Port-au-Prince refugee camp fielded daily reports of rape, prompting the United Nations to send a special unit of 130 female Bangladeshi soldiers to address the violence. Lamentably, the post-disaster rape crisis was not unique to Haiti alone; many Hurricane Katrina survivors were similarly re-victimized.

• On the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill, we noted that the pill’s invention by women’s rights crusader Margaret Sanger initiated the era of modern family planning, allowing women to choose the number and spacing of their children – a boon for their health and the health of their babies alike. But while the pill has done its part to keep our skyrocketing population in check (if you think things are bad, just imagine the world without it) its environmental record isn’t spotless – the hormones in the pill, excreted into waste water through urine, cause fatal mutations in fish populations.

• When a Houston tanning salon called upon the spirit of Coco Chanel to promote its new earth-friendly false tanning beet spray, we called foul. As legend has it, Chanel sparked the tanning craze in America when she stepped off a boat in Cannes with perfectly bronzed skin. Though Coco was a pioneering designer, breaching the boundary between menswear and womenswear, the tanning trendsetter didn’t galvanize women to leave the drudgery of housework in order to bask in the sunshine. Rather, Coco inadvertently created another unrealistic beauty standard.

• While much of the initial news surrounding the BP oil spill focused on the disaster’s effect on wildlife, we asked about its impact on human livelihoods. Coastal Women for Change, a community organization that sprung out of the post-Katrina haze to bring attention to the need for improved childcare in Biloxi, Mississippi, has stepped up after the spill by serving as a conduit for information from the Environmental Protection Agency to the local fishers. The biggest challenge? Getting fishers of different ethnic and economic backgrounds to rally together for their interests.

• Last year, journalists Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn published their book Half the Sky, a groundbreaking tome arguing that international aid is more effective when directed toward women. While Kristof and WuDunn described women as the gatekeepers of health and well-being in their communities, they left out one green detail: the fact that women also hold the keys to conservation. In Indonesia, the Environmental Ministry has begun offering classes on water conservation to women in rural areas who are responsible for fetching and distributing water to their families.

• Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, but we all care equally about the earth, right? Wrong. According to several articles this year, men and women display their green pride differently, with men working for big picture sustainability while women, ever the quibblers, take on recycling and composting projects. We pointed out the ludicrousy in this theory, noting that a handful of anecdotes don’t constitute a trend. With all this talk about men, women, and their green differences, we lose sight of the why we should go green at all.

• As if the oil spill wasn’t dangerous enough, the chemical dispersants used to clean it up could spell health risks for pregnant mothers and their unborn children. According to information recently released by the Environmental Protection Agency, chemicals that caused health problems in the cleanup workers on the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill are being used again today. Pregnant women have been advised to stay as far away from the contaminants as possible – a tall order for those women who actually live in the Gulf.

Image: xjyxjy

The post A Look Back at Women and the Environment in 2010 appeared first on EcoSalon.

This week’s medical news comes with a heaping side order of mixed messages. Tanning is bad! (But you already knew that.) Sunscreen is also bad! There’s a lot of conflicting medical advice out there about sun exposure. My advice? PANIC.

Medicine and health writers make a living from informing readers about the innocuous, daily habits that are killing you right now. It’s their bread and butter. So it’s important to take alarmist headlines with a grain of salt. But not too much salt, because you’re already eating too much and it’s slowly killing your sodium-bloated body. You’ll know it’s working when you’re afraid of everything.

Proponents for increased Vitamin D intake like Dr. Mark Hyman of The Huffington Post claim that Vitamin D deficiency can contribute to “cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, depression – and multiple sclerosis.” The human body naturally produces Vitamin D during sunlight exposure, so those of us who slather on the sunscreen religiously are missing out, especially because the only food sources that provide Vitamin D are herring and cod liver oil. Eating herring is (probably) worse than skin cancer or rickets.

For those of you who live in places where sunning yourself outside isn’t possible about eight months out of the year (hello, Minnesota readers!), you might be tempted to build up your Vitamin D levels by visiting a tanning salon. You’ll also build up your melanoma levels, unfortunately; the American Association of Cancer Research links indoor tanning with a “74-percent higher risk of skin cancer.” Thanks for playing!

There’s no need to despair just yet, however: NYU dermatology professor Dr. Darrell Rigel claims many studies show that elevated levels of Vitamin D don’t make a difference. So stay in. Or go out. Or go out, but only swathed in white cotton and SPF 45. Or rub yourself down with cod liver oil and go tanning. Just stop getting your medical advice from the Internet, okay?

Image: Evil Erin

The post Things That Will Probably Kill You, Vol. 3 appeared first on EcoSalon.

A Houston salon is home to the next big eco beauty trend: fake tanning using beet-based dyes. According to a recent story in CultureMap, a Houston entertainment site, a “body hueing” salon called Throwing Copper has developed a spray-on solution from the deep red root. The so-called “green tanning” trend is a boon for those who want a sunless tan without the harsh chemicals. But Throwing Copper has also managed to conflate bronzed skin with women’s lib, a claim that’s as artificial as it gets.

According to the CultureMap story, Throwing Copper owners Samantha Buchanan Curry and Stephani Adams were inspired to join the tanning trade by Coco Chanel, the frontierswoman of modern female couture. As the story goes, Coco Chanel ushered in the bronzed era in 1923 when she disembarked from a yacht in Cannes with perfectly tanned skin, rousing women to ditch their umbrellas in the summer months. While Chanel’s storied sunburn may have galvanized the tanning trend, cultural mores surrounding skin tone had been in flux for decades. Pale skin was once a characteristic of the elite, a way for privileged individuals to differentiate themselves from day laborers and farm workers who toiled under the sun. When the industrial revolution brought low wage jobs indoors, pale skin transcended socioeconomic lines. Around the same time, white aristocrats began sunning themselves while on vacation in the French Riviera. And doctors began recommending tanning as a remedy to cure tuberculosis and other illnesses.

Coco Chanel may have initiated a tanning craze when she stepped off that boat. But she did not initiate women’s liberation, as Throwing Copper’s Curry and Adams would have you believe. According to the spa’s web site, Chanel’s tan empowered women. “Chanel revolutionized fashion trends by designing women’s clothes that revealed more skin, and in the process redefined social norms by making it ‘au courant’ to acquire a sun tan. Women stepped out of the house and started enjoying outdoor life”¦”

Chanel’s menswear designs for women upended gender norms in the fashion world. But her tan? It was the promise of paid employment – not the promise of bronzed skin – that propelled women to step out of their homes. The only thing that sunbathing has brought us – aside from melanoma – is another pointless beauty standard.

But if it’s one you adhere to, best to take Curry and Adams’ advice and go green. A fake tan without the chemicals is better for your skin and the environment. It just won’t guarantee gender equity.

Image: love like blue

The post Tanning Without the Toxins for Women’s Liberation? appeared first on EcoSalon.