Month: April 2025

In my original post regarding my praxis project, I affirmed I would review the relationship between social beauty standards on women, and the impacts of cosmetics/beauty products on the environment. As previously noted in my blog, I would research three cosmetics companies: Estée Lauder, L’Oréal, and MAC, reviewing their advertising and development to understand their influences on women and the environment. My results (along with advertising examples) will be present in the body of this blog. In my final paragraph, I will analyze the effectiveness of my research, and express my desired outcomes pertaining to change.

Estée Lauder:

Estée Lauder, as in the attached photo, centers their marketing around female confidence, as in the above advertisement, or lipstick shades like “Bold Desires,” and, in two particularly interesting cases, “Defiant Coral,” and “Insolent Plum” (Estée Lauder). Choosing to use this (natural) diction to describe make-up shades is a marketing method designed to connect women’s beauty to “natural” colors in a way that sells product. The implicit message of the advertisement, to women, is that “confidence” can be bought, and given to a person with make-up, rather than an innate personality trait someone can develop through internal work.

Further, the use of alluring “natural” language is displayed to distract from the fact that the company uses natural and synthetic ingredients. The effects of these ingredients aren’t always clear. While synthetic materials can be longer-lasting, they can also be more harmful to the environment, as they are non-biodegradable, and they can carry chemicals which further pollute the environment. Listed ingredients on the company’s website include “Apricot kernel oil,” labeled as “natural;” and “dimethicone,” (synthetic) to prevent moisture loss. The combination of ingredients, “nature-based” language, and images in advertising significantly impacts women and the environment. In addition to the advertisement title, and the brand’s lipstick shades, diction such as “fresh” and “flawless” connects women and the environment in a way which suggests their purity and perfection (supposedly achieved with makeup) as desirable traits (consider, the women are wearing white dresses). However, in an ironic, and (literally) degrading turn, the company relies on phthalates (which are only required to be labeled as “fragrance”) which can cause harm to the reproductive system, and are attributable to further pollution (Estée Lauder; Faber; Gutierrez).

L’Oréal:

Despite the harm it ends up causing to women and the environment, frequent messages from makeup companies include phrases such as “revitalize” and “pure;” and (as in the images), L’Oréal is no different. Curtin explains, “women, more than men, experience the effects of culturally sanctioned oppressive attitudes toward the appropriate shape of the body;” I would amend this statement, by arguing the word “shape” could be replaced with “look/image,” or something of the like, as cosmetics companies, like the culture around food/meat, have created a similar connection to women and their bodies. In the case of these L’Oréal ads, the “appropriate” image of a woman is assumed to be “shiny, young, and flawless.” As with “purity” in the white clothing of Estée Lauder’s ad (above), my chosen L’Oréal images depict,

1) a cream (against a red background) which claims to “visibly reduce wrinkles and neck crepiness” from age (notice, there is no woman present, as aging is discouraged in this image), and

2) a young woman, with “perfect” hair, against a white background. These advertisements send the message to women that the “appropriate” image is that of a young, glossy, white, feminine figure; an example of what Tatum meant in writing, “the dominant worldview has saturated the culture for all to learn.” Certain identities are valued, and expressed, in advertising, which attempts to get people to submit to those ideals.

L’Oréal, in marketing to women, shares a marketing tactic with Estée Lauder: the “nature-based” lip color (at least in name), with shades like: “Blushing Berry,” “Peony Pink,” and “Glowy True Rose,” to suggest women’s connection with nature, specifically through the beauty they then take advantage of to sell their product. Despite their use of nature-inspired terminology, with limited data available, many of their products have been rated “moderate” or “high” hazard by the Environmental Working Group. The L’Oréal Groupe does claim to focus on their environmental impact: improving energy efficiency, using renewable energy, “respecting biodiversity and preserving natural resources” (L’Oréal Groupe). However, the company does test on animals (as does Estée Lauder), which (in addition to its ethical problems) can contribute to resource depletion (PETA). According to Enviroliteracy, animal testing requires a lot of water, and creates an immense amount of waste (single-use plastics, animal carcasses/waste, chemicals) which can further contaminate water/soil, and the use of wild animals can lessen biodiversity, further disrupting ecosystems. The reliance on destructive methods is particularly antithetical to the marketing of “purity” and “revitalization” which the company promotes; this would suggest a twisted logic: the Earth is expendable in order to encourage women to wear makeup which will make them look more “natural.” But beauty standards (which these companies reinforce/thrive off of) dictate what is perceived as “natural,” and their choices end up harming consumers and the environment for profit.

MAC:

Whereas the two brands above advertised with natural language, promises of “revitalization,” and purity, MAC markets with the allure of “shimmer.” Their concealers are labeled “luminous lift;” foundation: studio radiance, and (as in the image) lip gloss is compared to glass, although these carry titles like: “spice, lust, love child,’ and the disturbing ‘nymphette;” an eyeshadow bears the name: “coquette,” strongly leaning into women’s sexualization as a marketing tactic (Mac Cosmetics).

Diving deeper, however, natural titles appear. Blush has names like: ‘fleur power;” lip pencil comes in “cherry;” and eyeshadows are named “honey lust,” and “natural wilderness” (Mac Cosmetics). This mix of labels adds variety to their merchandise; however, their combination also reflect the sexualization of women, and the consumption of nature, which cosmetic companies partake in for profit. An example from MAC, many of their eyeshadows bear natural names: “shell peach, coral’, and ‘natural wilderness,” but they also contain carmine (extracted from the cochineal insect), and the aforementioned dimethicone, as Estée Lauder does (Wikipedia). Because MAC is sold in China, it is tested on animals.

I believe my research was effective in developing a greater understanding of the impacts of cosmetics companies of women and the environment. I think a longer, and more scientifically-enhanced project could provide a greater understanding of sustainable resources to use in make-up (as I never called for its abolishment). But I do see how cosmetics brands have connected women/beauty standards to nature for profit. Each of the cosmetics companies above rely on environmental degradation, animal cruelty, and the sexualization of women (or sexist assumptions of perfection) in some way. And they do so because women and the Earth have been so devalued that they are used for the profit of others. Because consumers continue purchasing these products, companies continue the marketing practice which are working for them. Continuing to purchase their products reinforces their actions. We should lessen the harm being done to women and the environment; if companies continue to profit off beauty standards which hurt women, and harmful environmental choices, then consumers must make the choice to stop purchasing products when corporations avoid taking the proper action in women’s empowerment and environmental protection. As I do not wear make-up, I recognize my research/this blog have more focus on making change outside of myself. However, taking a greater look at the issue made me remember why I stopped using make-up. I found myself more dedicated to this project as an opportunity to express the importance of caring for the environment, and caring for oneself (emotionally) by challenging beauty standards and perfectionism. I believe (while this blog is a step) I could take further action in developing greater research and developing future blogs, or magazine articles (which I could send for publication) detailing other aspects of this issue (different companies, noting other extracted elements which harm the Earth, etc.). But I could also work on creating methods of spreading a message of self-acceptance, and the beauty of diversity, so others realize the harmful effects of make-up development were never necessary. Beauty is more than skin-deep. Humanity and nature can be beautiful, if we strive to care for/respect ourselves, each other, and the environment. I hope, if myself and others spread this message, more positive change can be made.

Works Cited

Curtin, Deane. “Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care.” Hypathia, No. 6, Spring 1991, pp. 68-71, Acrobat Version, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 27 April 2025.

Enviroliteracy Team. “How does Animal Testing Affect the Environment.” Enviroliteracy. 18 November 2024. enviroliteracy.org/how-does-animal-testing-affect-the-environment/. Accessed 28 April 2025.

Faber, Scott. “The Toxic Twelve Chemicals and Contaminants in Cosmetics.” Environmental Wellness Group. 5 May 2020. ewg.org/the-toxic-twelve-chemicals-and-contaminants-in-cosmetics. Accessed 27 April 2025.

Gutierrez, Lukas. “Beauty at What Cost? The Environmental Impact of Cosmetic Ingredients and Materials.” Sustainable Earth. 30 March 2023. sustainable-earth.org/cosmetic-ingredients/. Accessed 27 April 2025.

n.a., “EWG’s Skin Deep®.” Environmental Working Group. 2025. ewg.org/skindeep/. Accessed 27 April 2025.

n.a., “Pure Color Creme Lipstick.” Estée Lauder. n.d. esteelauder.com/product/649/110671/product-catalog/makeup/lips/lipstick/pure-color/creme-lipstick. Accessed 27 April 2025.

n.a., “Re-NutrivUltimate Diamond Transformative Brilliance Soft Creme Moisturizer.” Estée Lauder. n.d. esteelauder.com/product/677/122945/product-catalog/re-nutriv/re-nutriv-moisturizer/re-nutriv/ultimate-diamond-transformative-brilliance-soft-creme-moisturizer. Accessed 27 April 2025.

n.a., “Skincare & Makeup Ingredient Glossary.” Estée Lauder. n.d. https://www.esteelauder.com/discover/ingredient-glossary. Accessed 27 April 2025.

n.a., “Fighting Climate Change.” L’Oréal Groupe. n.d. loreal.com/en/commitments-and-responsibilities/for-the-planet/fighting-climate-change/. Accessed 27 April 2025.

n.a., “Create the Beauty that Moves the World.” L’Oréal Groupe. n.d. loreal.com/en/group/about-loreal/our-purpose/. Accessed 28 April 2025.

n.a., “Best-Sellers.” MAC. n.d. maccosmetics.com/bestsellers. Accessed 28 April 2025.

n.a., “These Beauty Brands Are Still Tested on Animals.” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). n.d. peta.org/living/personal-care-fashion/beauty-brands-that-you-thought-were-cruelty-free-but-arent/. Accessed 28 April 2025.

n.a., “Carmine.” Wikipedia. 18 April 2025. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmine#. Accessed 28 April 2025.  

Image by Lubov Lisitsa from Pixabay

Research Question:

How do societal expectations about women’s beauty influence the choices they make; and how do these choices influence the environment? (i.e., how environmentally thoughtful/harmful are beauty products/make-up)?

My Idea:

In my praxis project, I hope to understand the connection between female beauty standards, and the effects of cosmetics on the environment. Specifically, my idea is to review how mass marketing and social perspectives influence girls’/women’s body image and their resulting drive to obtain cosmetics. I want to reflect on what these standards are, and how society encourages women to align with them. In doing so, I want to understand what cosmetic choices women are making. (What items do they buy, from what companies, and how do these decisions influence the environment?) I hope to understand how healthy or harmful these choices are, and why they are made (i.e., are products sustainably made; do women feel pressured into buying, or is there enjoyment?) What hierarchal structures/inequalities (interpersonal/ human-nature) are reinforced by cosmetic companies?

My Plan:

I will review different advertisements and marketing on women’s makeup and beauty products. These advertisements will come from television, stores, and the internet. I will choose advertisements from three of the biggest cosmetic companies (Estée Lauder, L’Oréal, MAC), and review each company. In studying the companies, I plan to observe their ingredients/packaging, and policies regarding environmental ethics. I will also review articles from environmental organizations to understand what chemicals/methods are used in makeup creation which have a negative impact on women, animals, and the environment (chemical emissions, packaging, product testing, etc.) and compare those to the ingredients in the three makeup brands. In preliminary research, one article mentioned, “common issues with traditional makeup include waste, product contamination, and harmful ingredients” (Fletcher). I plan to dive further into these development decisions and their effects. I will analyze social structures which encourage cosmetic practices, and how these choices perpetuate harm (environmental/human/animal, etc.) Upon obtaining my research, I will draft an opinion piece about my discoveries; this work will detail the current beauty standards, cosmetic company choices (what influences them, and how they impact the environment), and offer more sustainable options as well as challenging common beauty standards with feminist logic.

Image by Adina Voicu from Pixabay

My Goals (What I Hope to Achieve):

In completing this project, I hope to develop a list of cosmetic brands which I will grade based on their environmental impact and their advertising impact on audiences. In developing this graded list, I hope to outline the (social/environmental) choices different brands make. It is also my goal to present how (specifically) these choices will impact the Earth/women. I will include this list in a complete analysis paper. Overall, I hope my research and developed paper can effectively argue for more environmentally sustainable practices in makeup development, and challenge harmful beauty standards and hierarchal (gender, human/nature, race/ethnicity, age, etc.) beliefs. Gebara writes, “we need to understand that these different levels of one against the other will finally destroy all of us” (97). If women recognize beauty does not need to be defined by patriarchal society, see how their financial choices impact the continued practices of makeup companies, and understand how their choices affect nature (and reflect dated ideals/systemic beliefs), perhaps my work can lessen the environmental harm of cosmetic creation/use, while also encouraging an inclusive (non-commercial) perspective on beauty.

Why My Plan Will Be Effective:

With this project, my work relates back to our units on vegetarian ecofeminism and the woman-nature connection in animal testing, or the “acquisition of raw materials” from the Earth which parallels the patriarchal view of women as consumable (Fletcher). Adams, in her Antennae interview, states, “Consumption is the fulfilment of oppression, the annihilation of will, of separate identity” (14). Cosmetics companies, like the meat market, profit off the objectification (and stripped identity) of nature/animals and women, together. By ignoring/reinforcing harmful practices (animal testing, single-use plastic products), companies cause further environmental harm. At the same time, their reliance on patriarchal/dated beauty standards as a marketing tactic (for profit) may further belief in these ideas, not only from men/observers, but from women, themselves, who might equate their image to their worth. Curtin argued, “An ecofeminist perspective emphasizes that one’s body is oneself, and that by inflicting violence needlessly, one’s bodily self becomes a context for violence.” While she was referring to vegetarianism and meat consumption, the message may be applied to cosmetics/beauty standards as well. By upholding patriarchal beauty standards in environmentally destructive ways, women become both the harmed party and (in the use of non-sustainable products) the assailants of nature. By sharing this message (with the inclusion of research,) I can encourage changes which 1) offer women agency in a patriarchal society; and 2) lead to cleaner choices to benefit the environment. To be clear, if global makeup companies were considerate of how their practices affect the environment and social standards, I would have no issue with a woman’s choice in enjoying beauty products, but this should not be out of insecurity or pressure, and nor should it do damage to Earth’s ecosystem.

Work Cited

Carol J. Adams, interview by Annie Potts. “The Politics of Carol J. Adams.” Antennae, Autumn 2010, pp. 12-24. University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 7 April 2025.

Curtin, Deane. “Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care.” Hypathia, No. 6, Spring 1991, pp. 68-71, Acrobat Version, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 7 April 2025.

Fletcher, Charlie. “The Environmental and Health Impacts of the Cosmetic Industry.” Earth.org. 13 February 2023. earth.org/environmental-impacts-cosmetic-industry/. Accessed 8 April 2025.

Gebara, Ivone. “Ecofeminism: A Latin American Perspective.” Crosscurrents, Spring 2003, pp. 93-103; University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 7 April 2025.

Gutierrez, Lukas. “Beauty at What Cost? The Environmental Impact of Cosmetic Ingredients and Materials.” Sustainable Earth. 30 March 2023. sustainable-earth.org/cosmetic-ingredients/. Accessed 8 April 2025.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

As observed in the readings, connections between the oppressions of women and nature come in the reinforcement of ideals and behaviors which prevent women from achieving any true social or ecological advancement, leaving them perpetually fighting for their equality and challenging the oppressive beliefs which continue to harm women and the environment. Gebara writes, “while all these [ecofeminist] discussions are going on, the destruction of the Amazon forest, the rain forest, and others, continue” (94). Activism has to move beyond theorizing solutions, and begin enacting them. Otherwise, the very issues we so passionately converse over will never change, contributing to lasting harm. Corrêa, writing on the issue of poverty and environmental degradation in Brazil, notes publicity on the issue, “hasn’t yet resulted in the other children of the slums getting more money or services.” Gebara also notes this lack of action, which causes further harm, writing “they have not tried other alternatives to the garbage…they are hostages of their own poverty and inconsistency” (96). Oppression and inequality, even when recognized, are maintained without action to counter their validity.

One challenge in making real change, however, is the resistance activists meet. When Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan environmentalist and women’s rights advocate challenged the creation of a skyscraper which would lead to immense natural devastation, she faced appalling harassment and threats which specifically targeted her femininity: “a government-run newspaper questioned her sexual past…and [government officials] threatened to mutilate her genitals in order to force Maathai to behave ‘like women should’” (Maathai). This resistance to her work exemplifies the overlapping oppression of women and nature, as feminine protection of nature is seen as a threat to a patriarchal (President Moi) ideal of control (threats/political action/environmental degradation); thus, the angered masculine power relies on gendered social assumptions (in this case, gender-based violence) to intimidate diverse thinking, and neutralize the perceived threat.

 

 

 

 

 

Image by Dominic Wunderlich from Pixabay

Patriarchy (and other social inequalities) is/are reflected in human-nature interactions. And, despite the reality “that humanity itself is inseparable from nature as a whole,” one is less likely to experience or understand the inequalities of harm if their circumstances offer them the privilege of ignorance (something I mentioned in my blog on women in politics) (Kings 71). Environmental degradation does not impact people equally, and a system (patriarchy) which reinforces privilege (and social inequalities) does not have the framework for appropriately handling these issues in an inclusive/caring way. Hence, according to Gebara, “the solution of social and environmental problems and the oppression of women can’t come from this patriarchal structure of dependence” (96).

I agree; deeper issues of disempowerment and environmental degradation underlie the material deprivations and cultural losses of the marginalized/poor. When our society is fundamentally based in hierarchal belief systems, this hierarchy is going to adapt itself to various situations (in America, patriarchy, capitalism, and “Christian traditional theology”) (Gebara 98). By doing so, American society/values is/are structured around systems of inequality. With knowledge of intersectionality (pertaining to ecosystems and humanity), if these inequalities are upheld, those most affected by environmental degradation will be the ones who are not only causing less damage to the environment, but the ones with the least influence/capacity to stop the damage/fix the problem. According to Stokes, “one and a half billion people depend on forest directly for survival.” Further environmental destruction will eliminate the natural resources they rely on. Norgaard and York write, “in an unequal society, the impacts of environmental degradation fall disproportionately on the least powerful” (507). However, these impacted citizens may be more likely to advocate for the proper handling of an issue, championing causes and requesting support from those in power. It comes back to devaluation; when privileged groups devalue nature, and people with less social privilege, these inequalities (due to systemic prejudices) will leave socially underprivileged groups more vulnerable to the effects of environmental degradation (likely caused by the privileged groups). Thus, as I have argued in previous blog posts, impactful change requires 1) a shift in values, prioritizing environmental care and social equality; and 2) that we lift the voices of, and listen to, those most affected by environmental issues, coming together to develop sustainable solutions to heal the environment and help struggling communities. Our activism must reflect these opinions and values, challenging oppressive systems which disregard environmental and human diversity.

Works Cited

Corrêa, Talita. “The Brazilian Slum Children Who Are Literally Swimming in Garbage.” Vice, 20 January 2014. vice.com/en/article/the-brazilian-slum-children-who-are-literally-swimming-in-garbage-0000197-v21n1/. Accessed 1 April 2025.

Gebara, Ivone. “Ecofeminism: A Latin American Perspective.” Crosscurrents, Spring 2003, pp. 93-103; University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 1 April 2025.

Kings, A.E. “Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism.” Ethics & the Environment, Volume 22, Number 1, Spring 2017, pp. 63-87 (Article); Indiana University Press; Project Muse, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth. muse-jhu-edu.libproxy.umassd.edu/article/660551. Accessed 1 April 2025.

Maathai, Wangari. “Speak Truth to Power.” The Green Belt Movement, 4 May 2000. greenbeltmovement.org/wangari-maathai/key-speeches-and-articles/speak-truth-to-power. Accessed 1 April 2025.

Norgaard, Kari and Richard York. “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism.” Gender & Society, vol. 19, no. 4, August 2005, pp. 506-522; University of California-Davis; University of Oregon; University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 1 April 2025.

Stokes, Calum. “Why the Chipko Movement is More Important Than Ever.” Academia.edu, n.d. academia.edu/34345657/Why_the_Chipko_Movement_is_more_important_than_ever. Accessed 1 April 2025.