We have a fake eyelashes epidemic. I blame Fox News and the Kardashian sisters

[laylalex 7,300]

 

Quote

 

“The whole Fox look was created to deal with those cameras, and lights,” said Baker. “It was very technical: This is how we look glamorous.” Also, she told the New York Times last year: “It has to fit a predetermined idea of what men think is pretty, more specifically what Roger Ailes thinks is pretty.”

The idea that women felt they had to contort themselves to be presentable for a man who resembled nothing so much as a toad is tragic.

Gabriel Sherman, in his Ailes biography, “The Loudest Voice in the Room,” interviewed a former Fox makeup artist, Karem Alsina, who said she grew suspicious when Fox anchors came to have their makeup done before private meetings with Ailes. “They would say, ‘I’m going to see Roger, gotta look beautiful!’” Some would return with their makeup smudged.

 

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-02-12/column-false-eyelashes-are-out-of-control-blame-fox-news-and-the-kardashian-sisters

 

Okay, so I think this sort of straddles my beauty thread in Off Topic (false eyelashes, duh) but also the author blames Fox News and specifically Roger Ailes for the ubiquity of false eyelashes. Oh, and some Kardashians thrown in for good measure.  I rarely wear them myself -- only for special occasions, when I'm going for a very specific strong eye look, and even then I don't do the strip ones, only individually-placed lashes. I mean, women should do whatever they want with their makeup, but the very obvious and heavy sets are not for me. 

 

Beyond that, I think that the author really stretched to blame Fox News for the popularity of the trend. Yes, I see women all over the place wearing them in places I wouldn't expect (public library, CVS, at the county registrar when I was changing my voter registration) but if anything it's that they're everywhere, and the price for halfway decent ones has dropped.

[Boiler 46,121]

Well I am out of LATimes articles and not sure I would waste one for this.

 

As I never notice, well knowingly I suppose, this sort of thing I am probably not one to comment.

 

I am going to assume i am not alone and this is one of those women noticing other women things.

[laylalex 7,300]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

Well I am out of LATimes articles and not sure I would waste one for this.

 

As I never notice, well knowingly I suppose, this sort of thing I am probably not one to comment.

 

I am going to assume i am not alone and this is one of those women noticing other women things.

It is a very silly article/opinion piece. It generated some letters to the editor saying that it was ridiculous.

 

I started taking the LA Times a couple of weeks before we moved down here. I agree with you where you said elsewhere that the reporting is pretty even-handed, and I think the sub is better value for money than the NYT and WaPo subs I have, though not as good as the New Yorker and Vanity Fair ones I have, since those have way more content than just "news." I have been dithering over an Economist sub for myself -- Al has one but I feel like I can't ask to share in good conscience unless I want to go through another round of allegations that I'm just a leech on my menfolk.  (He will not share with me because he was very amused by all the Netflix blowback I got on here. I can "earn" access to articles but it's all a silly game I don't always want to play. And I can access quite a good amount through their Instagram links anyway.)