Mid Brain reports:
This story about Bollywood star Shahrukh Khan’s endorsement of a skin lightening product demonstrates just how controversial a cosmetic product can be. Khan, who’s been described as the Tom Cruise of Bollywood, is being criticized for reinforcing prejudices and stereotypes. The product he’s pitching is called Fair and Handsome and it’s supposed to make users lighter-skinned and confident. You can see the video here.
Their website lists the 4 key ingredients as Peptide, Licorice, Vetiver and Aloe Vera. These aren’t likely to give any skin lightening effect. It is more likely they are using technology similar to Meladerm since hydroquinone is banned in some EU countries. They don’t have the same labeling requirements as the US so the actual active ingredients couldn’t be found.
Cosmetic Irony
It’s always seemed ironic that we all seem to want what we don’t have. People who are dark skinned want lighter skin. People who are pale want tanned skin. Women with straight hair get perms, those with curly hair get it relaxed. For cosmetic companies, this is good. There will always be a need for products to fix some perceived problem. Unfortunately, I’m just not sure if reinforcing stereotypes and making people feel bad about their natural beauty is good for humanity.
Loading ...
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
Beauty standards always seem to promote attributes which are less prevalent in society and there appears to be an aversion to a broad definition of beauty. Perhaps this is due to economic reasons. If economic resources for women were doled out based on beauty (as in olden times), a narrow definition provides more guidance as to how to divide these scarce resources and the effort required to adhere to the beauty standard reflects upon the discipline and training of the girl. Or if beauty is used as an indicator of economic status (as it is now), then the beautiful traits must be selective enough so that they must be maintained through the use of time and money.
I have to admit, the skin lightening stuff creeps me out big time. I agree that everyone seems to want to be whatever is rarest, but in a country with a history of imperialism frmo the West, like India, it’s got baggage for pete’s sake. There’s just no getting around it. I may be biased myself though — I’m the dark end of white (olive skin), and I’d love to be darker. I can’t imagine having all that lovely dark skin and messing it up.
I can’t imagine being pale and using tanning lotion, though. There’s SO many different ways to be beautiful, and flattening it all out like this just seems to ruin it. It’s so much more fun and more interesting to see many different types of people, not for PC reasons, but just because it’s so fun to see different types of people isntead of everyone looking the same.
I can’t even tell most of the big-name celebrities apart anymore. Seriously — take a quick one-second look at a magazine cover, just flash your eyes past it, and then tell me if it was a picture of Gwyneth Paltrow, Nicole Richie, or Cameron Diaz. You won’t be able to.
I don’t know whether the skincare product Fair and Handsome make users lighter-skinned and confident. But I’m sure having Shah Rukh Khan in their product ad will create a hype for the product in the market.
yea fair and handsome is being popular among the youngster… and might be also due to KIng Khan ads..
Well, they have similar products here, only they’re called “skin brightners” instead. I think westerners are too quick to think that if an Asian person wants lighter skin, then that means they are aspiring to be held against Caucasian standards of beauty. There are many native Indians who have naturally pale skin, perhaps it is to that standard of beauty they are aspiring.
Wrong! People do NOT “always want what someone else has instead of what they have”. NOONE wants the curly thin hair my family inherited – get yourselves over that platitude. Have you ever seen anyone revered for their beauty in the media, who has thin curly hair? NOPE! Take your old wive’s tail of “wanting what you don’t have” and toss it where it belongs – the trash.
Got some anger issues there, YAW? Seems to me you’ve proven the BBs’ point. You have thin curly hair but obviously want thick straight hair. Which means you want something someone else has.
I have to agree with what MizzJ says about race and western perceptions of what “ethnic” beauty should be. On that note, Mid Brain, how are you defining “natural beauty”? Does it mean a kind of beauty that is inevitably unnatural (because the modern natural beauty still needs to be zit-less, scar-less, and wrinkle-free)? Or is it one that is utterly devoid of using cosmetic products?
If you look at old, I mean renaissance and medieval, Indian paintings, you will see the “beautiful maiden” is always painted extremely light-skinned, the prince/hero/… mildly tanned, and the evil guy dark skinned. This racism has been firmly rooted in society long before any European set foot to India.
When Shahrukh Khan, like any other Indian celebrity, advertises this stuff, he is not a product of history and not a victim of Imperialism. He is just a greedy unscrupulous person. It is 100% his own responsibility. Period.
Kamikatze, it’s not racist, it’s the simple fact that India was heavily imperialism by the English, so of course they’re going to have very Anglo opinions about what’s beautiful. In this day and age, from what I can gather, most Asians prefer to use skin lighteners to even out pigmentation, not to try to look whiter. It seems to be a pigmentation thing, (the way pale girls stress about freckles) not about trying to look whiter.
To find out more about these celebrity skin whitening products go to: http://www.celebrityskinwhitening.com
Elle, if they want to even out skin, they can do it with darker toned makeup, too. Of COURSE this is about looking whiter. It’s WHITENING.
But you know what? If people want to throw bleach on themselves, then go ahead. Your skin, your self-esteem, your problem.
What I was trying to say was that the Indian craze for “fair” skin is hundreds, and probably even thousands of years old. The British came much later and were only fitting into a system that already existed. I guess the roots of this were ethnic once, because you can still observe that there are very different “types” of Indians.
Anyway, it is convenient for modern India to forget about this, and blame their own faults on the British.
Not everyone who is dark skinned wants to be lighter in order to look more like caucasians. Its like saying the white people who tan are trying to look more like black people.
In India there is definitely the issue of the caste system, which has never gone away in day to day life. People who are lighter skinned tend to be seen as higher caste and the darker ones are seen as lower caste. In India, when someone is lighter, they are more likely to get a better job, marry up & do well socially. Darker people are seen as being fit for outdoor labour & servitude. White people do not even begin to come into it, just like black people have nothing to do with bleached, blondes’ desire for tanning.
There is a new movie out called “Good Hair”. You have to see what black / african woman go through to have “PC” hair just to be accepted into society. Au naturel tree huggers are always quick to offer, “love your natural, let your hair be” but have never been stared at in public for having “unkept, natural afros”.
Hair is not skin. But the topics are similar.
Can you imagine a world where the black / african celebrities and role models sport “natural afros” ? Beyonce, Oprah, Tyra, all wearing a fro 24-7 ? Yeah, right have you seen a black / african person in senior management sporting “natural afros” ?
Exactly.