How a [Jewess] Makeup Mogul Liberated Women by Putting Them in a Pretty New Cage
By Lisa Hix — June 24th, 2015



When Caitlyn Jenner made her debut on the July 2015 cover of “Vanity Fair” in full old-Hollywood glamour mode, her highly styled appearance triggered discussion and debate: After all, not every woman has the money to, or even wants to, embody that particular ideal of feminine beauty, which involves elaborate foundation makeup to create shimmery highlights and contoured cheeks. Fifty years after the women’s lib movement railed against makeup, we’re still deeply conflicted about the stuff. Is it a tool for oppression—a way to force women to conform to certain standards meant to please or seduce men? Is makeup empowering women, especially trans women like Caitlyn, to express their identities? Or does the culture of makeup give women more work to do, by making them ashamed of the faces they wake up with?[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
In the Victorian and Edwardian periods, respectable Western middle-class society condemned regular use of makeup, which was thought of as something only stage actors and prostitutes used. (Although some women probably dabbled in light makeup behind closed doors to fake the flawless bloom of youth.) In the 1910s, though, women in the suffrage movement wore bright red lipstick as an act of defiance. Helena Rubinstein—an early global female entrepreneur who began selling cold cream at her first beauty salon in Australia in 1902—jumped at this opportunity to create a mass market that never existed before: She championed makeup as a way for women to reinvent themselves and assert their individual personalities. For the flapper feminists of the 1910s and 1920s, makeup became a tool of liberation—both economic and sɛҳuąƖ—and Rubinstein taught them how to apply it.
“Women were under such parochial constraints, including sartorial and domestic expectations,” explains Mason Klein, curator of the Jєωιѕн Museum in New York City, which presented the first-ever retrospective of the cosmetics magnate’s life and collections called, “Helena Rubinstein: Beauty Is Power,” this past winter. Currently, the Jєωιѕн Museum-organized show is on display at Boca Raton Museum of Art in Boca Raton, Florida, until July 12, 2015. “The middle class frowned terribly upon women who wore makeup. It was only actresses, prostitutes, and the very wealthy who could make themselves up. Rubinstein wanted to make beauty accessible to everyone.

[continue reading here; long article: https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/how-a-makeup-mogul-liberated-women-by-putting-them-in-a-pretty-new-cage/ ][/font][/size]

Excerpt from of the perversion of the Catholic notion of beauty:

"In Europe, as in other patriarchal civilizations, beauty ideals are defined primarily for men's pleasure and are camouflaged as 'natural.'  In medieval Europe, scholastic literature made no distinction between physical beauty and moral goodness.  The Church Fathers treated cosmetics as the devil's invention because they embellished appearance.  As Ben Love remarks, 'For women of medieval and early modern Europe, beauty was, therefore, not so much a physical trait as a behavioral one, tied to the twin notions of morality and moderation.'  Even in the 1930's, remnants of this conception of feminine beauty remained in Church-inspired manuals for married women.  By then, however, manuals written by Catholic laywomen put as much emphasis on cosmetically enhanced external appearance as they did on the 'soul.'  In the 7th edition of the authoritative French dictionary, published in 1879, the entry for beauty mentioned bonté or the moral quality of kindness but concentrated in visible manifestations that 'please the eyes.'  By the 8th edition, published in 1933, moral qualities had disappeared from the definition of beauty."

https://books.google.com/books?id=xNMerfh17kAC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=catholic+church+condemns+cosmetics&source=bl&ots=N-JoHR6_9q&sig=ACfU3U1bP3gr_rVuu19VLNlpIXSMk8WdGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5h_mMxofgAhVp0YMKHdjFAvwQ6AEwCnoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=catholic%20church%20condemns%20cosmetics&f=false

I am the same way when walking around the lake with my wife:
I would never wear a speedo at home, but I want her to be proud walking next to me, so I like to put on a speedo when we go out.  I think it is charity that she should get to show me off to all the other honeys.  It shows I am really pleasing her.  
Its just part of looking my best.
I do it for her.
:o

Excerpt from of the perversion of the Catholic notion of beauty:

"In Europe, as in other patriarchal civilizations, beauty ideals are defined primarily for men's pleasure and are camouflaged as 'natural.'  In medieval Europe, scholastic literature made no distinction between physical beauty and moral goodness.  The Church Fathers treated cosmetics as the devil's invention because they embellished appearance.  As Ben Love remarks, 'For women of medieval and early modern Europe, beauty was, therefore, not so much a physical trait as a behavioral one, tied to the twin notions of morality and moderation.'  Even in the 1930's, remnants of this conception of feminine beauty remained in Church-inspired manuals for married women.  By then, however, manuals written by Catholic laywomen put as much emphasis on cosmetically enhanced external appearance as they did on the 'soul.'  In the 7th edition of the authoritative French dictionary, published in 1879, the entry for beauty mentioned bonté or the moral quality of kindness but concentrated in visible manifestations that 'please the eyes.'  By the 8th edition, published in 1933, moral qualities had disappeared from the definition of beauty."

https://books.google.com/books?id=xNMerfh17kAC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=catholic+church+condemns+cosmetics&source=bl&ots=N-JoHR6_9q&sig=ACfU3U1bP3gr_rVuu19VLNlpIXSMk8WdGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5h_mMxofgAhVp0YMKHdjFAvwQ6AEwCnoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=catholic%20church%20condemns%20cosmetics&f=false

Because it shows you have been influenced by a non-Catholic feminist?