![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brdgtLife’s Work: The Feminine Critique
By LISA BELKIN, The New York Times, November 1, 2007
DON’T get angry. But do take charge. Be nice. But not too nice. Speak up. But don’t seem like you talk too much. Never, ever dress sexy. Make sure to inspire your colleagues — unless you work in Norway, in which case, focus on delegating instead.
Writing about life and work means receiving a steady stream of research on how women in the workplace are viewed differently from men. These are academic and professional studies, not whimsical online polls, and each time I read one I feel deflated. What are women supposed to do with this information? Transform overnight? And if so, into what? How are we supposed to be assertive, but not, at the same time?
“It’s enough to make you dizzy,” said Ilene H. Lang, the president of Catalyst, an organization that studies women in the workplace. “Women are dizzy, men are dizzy, and we still don’t have a simple straightforward answer as to why there just aren’t enough women in positions of leadership.”
Catalyst’s research is often an exploration of why, 30 years after women entered the work force in large numbers, the default mental image of a leader is still male. Most recent is the report titled “Damned if You Do, Doomed if You Don’t,” which surveyed 1,231 senior executives from the United States and Europe. It found that women who act in ways that are consistent with gender stereotypes — defined as focusing “on work relationships” and expressing “concern for other people’s perspectives” — are considered less competent. But if they act in ways that are seen as more “male” — like “act assertively, focus on work task, display ambition” — they are seen as “too tough” and “unfeminine.”
Women can’t win.
In 2006, Catalyst looked at stereotypes across cultures (surveying 935 alumni of the International Institute for Management Development in Switzerland) and found that while the view of an ideal leader varied from place to place — in some regions the ideal leader was a team builder, in others the most valued skill was problem-solving. But whatever was most valued, women were seen as lacking it.
Respondents in the United States and England, for instance, listed “inspiring others” as a most important leadership quality, and then rated women as less adept at this than men. In Nordic countries, women were seen as perfectly inspirational, but it was “delegating” that was of higher value there, and women were not seen as good delegators.
Other researchers have reached similar conclusions. Joan Williams runs the Center for WorkLife Law, part of the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. She wrote the book “Unbending Gender” and she, too, has found that women are held to a different standard at work.
They are expected to be nurturing, but seen as ineffective if they are too feminine, she said in a speech last week at Cornell. They are expected to be strong, but tend to be labeled as strident or abrasive when acting as leaders. “Women have to choose between being liked but not respected, or respected but not liked,” she said.
While some researchers, like those at Catalyst and WorkLife Law, tend to paint the sweeping global picture — women don’t advance as much as men because they don’t act like men — other researchers narrow their focus.
Victoria Brescoll, a researcher at Yale, made headlines this August with her findings that while men gain stature and clout by expressing anger, women who express it are seen as being out of control, and lose stature. Study participants were shown videos of a job interview, after which they were asked to rate the applicant and choose their salary. The videos were identical but for two variables — in some the applicants were male and others female, and the applicant expressed either anger or sadness about having lost an account after a colleague arrived late to an important meeting.
The participants were most impressed with the angry man, followed by the sad woman, then the sad man, and finally, at the bottom of the list, the angry woman. The average salary assigned to the angry man was nearly $38,000 while the angry woman received an average of only $23,000.
When the scenario was tweaked and the applicant went on to expand upon his or her anger — explaining that the co-worker had lied and said he had directions to the meeting — participants were somewhat forgiving, giving women who explained their anger more money than those who had no excuse (but still less money than comparative men).
Also this summer, Linda C. Babcock, an economics professor at Carnegie Mellon University, looked at gender and salary in a novel way. She recruited volunteers to play Boggle and told them beforehand that they would receive $2 to $10 for their time. When it came time for payment, each participant was given $3 and asked if that was enough.
Men asked for more money at eight times the rate of women. In a second round of testing, where participants were told directly that the sum was negotiable, 50 percent of women asked for more money, but that still did not compare with 83 percent of men. It would follow, Professor Babcock concluded, that women are equally poor at negotiating their salaries and raises.
There are practical nuggets of advice in all this data. Don’t be shy about negotiating. If you blow your stack, explain (or try). “Some of what we are learning is directly helpful, and tells women that they are acting in ways they might not even be aware of, and that is harming them and they can change,” said Peter Glick, a psychology professor at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wis.
He is the author of one such study, in which he showed respondents a video of a woman wearing a sexy low-cut blouse with a tight skirt or a skirt and blouse that were conservatively cut. The woman recited the same lines in both, and the viewer was either told she was a secretary or an executive. Being more provocatively dressed had no effect on the perceived competence of the secretary, but it lowered the perceived competence of the executive dramatically. (Sexy men don’t have that disconnect, Professor Glick said. While they might lose respect for wearing tight pants and unbuttoned shirts to the office, the attributes considered most sexy in men — power, status, salary — are in keeping with an executive image at work.)
But Professor Glick also concedes that much of this data — like his 2000 study showing that women were penalized more than men when not perceived as being nice or having social skills — gives women absolutely no way to “fight back.” “Most of what we learn shows that the problem is with the perception, not with the woman,” he said, “and that it is not the problem of an individual, it’s a problem of a corporation.”
Ms. Lang, at Catalyst, agreed. This accumulation of data will be of value only when companies act on it, she said, noting that some are already making changes. At Goldman Sachs, she said, the policy on performance reviews now tries to eliminate bias. A red flag is expected to go up if a woman is described as “having sharp elbows or being brusque,” she said. “The statement should not just stand,” she said. “Examples should be asked for, the context should be considered, would the same actions be cause for comment if it was a man?”
In fact, Catalyst’s next large project is to advise companies on ways they can combat stereotypical bias. And Professor Glick has some upcoming projects, too. One looks at whether women do better in sales if they show more cleavage. A second will look at the flip side of gender stereotypes at work: hostility toward men.
E-mail: Belkin@nytimes.com
Skin Deep: Natural, Organic Beauty
By NATASHA SINGER, The New York Times, November 1, 2007
FOR Flavia Kawaja, an interior designer in Manhattan, a trip to the beauty department at Whole Foods Market comes not with a shopping list but with a mental list of what synthetic ingredients to avoid.
Ms. Kawaja won’t use antiperspirant made with aluminum derivatives, in case the urban legend that they could cause diseases like Alzheimer’s turns out to be true. She also steers clear of skin-care products with parabens, common antibacterial agents used as preservatives in some cosmetics, drugs and foods.
Although there have been no rigorous large-scale prospective clinical trials to show that parabens in cosmetics represent a risk to beauty consumers, a few studies have shown that exposure to parabens can cause reproductive changes in lab rodents.
By choosing cosmetics marketed as natural or organic, Ms. Kawaja errs on the side of caution. Even so, she admits that she’s unsure whether her careful choice of natural shampoos and sunscreens translates into health benefits.
“I don’t assume that organic automatically means good for you,” she said. “I mean, if you fry an organic potato, it’s still a French fry.”
Organic connoisseurs have long made a practice of reading food labels to weed out those grown with pesticides or that contain synthetic colors, flavors or preservatives. Now, in the wake of recent health scares over tainted pet food and toothpaste, some beauty mavens are seeking synthetic-free cosmetics in the belief that products made without industrial ingredients like petrochemicals ought to be healthier for you.
These newly minted label inspectors are fueling a boom in so-called natural and organic personal care products. Natural cosmetics market themselves as containing plant or mineral ingredients; organic products say they are made with agricultural ingredients grown without pesticides.
During the 12 months through Sept. 9, Americans spent $150 million on the top three mass-market natural personal care brands, including Burt’s Bees, Jason Natural Cosmetics and Tom’s of Maine, an increase of $51 million over the year before, according to Information Resources Inc., a market research firm. Meanwhile, sales of organic personal care items reached $350 million last year, an increase of $68 million over 2005, according to manufacturers’ data compiled by the Organic Trade Association, an industry group.
“We’re seeing an increased consciousness that what you put on your body is as important as what goes in your body,” said Jeremiah McElwee, the senior coordinator in charge of personal care at Whole Foods, which is the company’s fastest-growing department. “The biggest impetus for buying natural or organic body care is the perceived health benefit.”
It would seem logical to assume that common ingestible ingredients like olives or soy would naturally be healthier for the skin and body than hard-to-pronounce, multisyllabic industrial cosmetic ingredients like the preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone. But representatives for the government and the beauty industry, as well as some environmental activists, acknowledge that there is no published scientific proof to support the notion that plant-based cosmetics are safer, healthier or more effective for people.
“Consumers should not necessarily assume that an ‘organic’ or ‘natural’ ingredient or product would possess greater inherent safety than another chemically identical version of the same ingredient,” Dr. Linda M. Katz, the director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors, wrote in an e-mail message to this reporter. “In fact, ‘natural’ ingredients may be harder to preserve against microbial contamination and growth than synthetic raw materials.”
The confusion over the “truthiness” of the natural personal care market also stems from the lack of national standards.
The F.D.A., which regulates cosmetics, has never imposed standard definitions for marketing terms like natural and organic as they apply to grooming products, Dr. Katz said via e-mail. So manufacturers are free to use such terms on everything from a synthetic-based shampoo with one plant derivative to a synthetic-free face powder formulated with only minerals.
The agency requires manufacturers to ensure that cosmetics are safe for their intended use. But the agency leaves it up to manufacturers to decide which safety and efficacy tests to perform on ingredients and finished products.
John Bailey, the executive vice president for science of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, a trade group in Washington, said cosmetics are safe, whether their formulas contain synthetics or plants.
“On the most fundamental level, they are held to the same legal and regulatory standards,” said Dr. Bailey, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry.
But Jane Houlihan, the vice president for research of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit group in Washington, said the lack of established federal standards is responsible for consumer confusion over whether natural products provide tangible advantages or are simply a sop to green mind-sets.
“Even if a beauty product claims it is purely from the earth, you need to read the ingredient label,” Ms. Houlihan said.
Ms. Houlihan said increased consumer interest in natural products is driving a few manufacturers to include exotic plants in formulas that lack an established track record in the beauty industry. For example, she said, her group could not find published safety data on newer cosmetic ingredients like West Indian rosewood bark oil and white peony flower extract.
“Just because an ingredient comes from a plant does not necessarily make it safe to use in a cosmetic,” Ms. Houlihan said. “Tobacco, hemlock and poison ivy are all examples of plants that can be hazardous.”
Indeed, some dermatologists said that even natural ingredients that seem benign can cause skin allergies. For example, Dr. David A. Kiken, a chief dermatology resident at the school of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said he had seen skin irritation caused by tea tree oil, chamomile and green tea in cosmetics.
“Although the term natural botanical extracts inherently purports to have beneficial and benign properties, these extracts can cause adverse reactions in individuals,” Dr. Kiken wrote in a paper published in the American Journal of Contact Dermatitis.
In the absence of F.D.A. standards, dozens of beauty companies and stores are using words like botanical, herbal, natural, pure and organic to market brands, each using its own in-house definition.
For example, on www.sephora.com, the company distinguishes between botanical brands that use some plant ingredients; natural brands that eschew synthetic preservatives, colors and fragrances; and organic brands that employ some plant ingredients grown without pesticides.
Other brands style themselves as organic to signal ultimate wholesomeness. Even then, definitions vary widely. Some beauty companies simply employ organic in their brand names. Others promote certain ingredients that have been vetted by private companies that inspect organic foods.
A few brands — including Origins and Nature’s Gate — have even received certification for some products from the National Organic Program, the division of the Department of Agriculture whose logo appears on certified organic food products. Cosmetics are eligible to use such food seals if they contain at least 95 percent of certified organic ingredients that are agricultural products made from livestock or crops, grown and processed without chemical fertilizers, pesticides, growth hormones and antibiotics.
But people should not interpret even the U.S.D.A. Organic seal — www.ams.usda.gov/nop/FactSheets/Backgrounder.html — on cosmetics as proof of health benefits or of efficacy, said Joan Shaffer, a department spokeswoman. Government-accredited certifiers simply vet the manner in which these food ingredients are grown and processed, just as they would for a jar of organic tomato sauce, she said.
“The National Organic Program is a marketing program, not a safety program,” Ms. Shaffer said, likening the department’s organic seal to its grading system for beef. “Steak may be graded prime, but that has no bearing on whether it is safe or nutritious to eat.”
By LISA BELKIN, The New York Times, November 1, 2007
DON’T get angry. But do take charge. Be nice. But not too nice. Speak up. But don’t seem like you talk too much. Never, ever dress sexy. Make sure to inspire your colleagues — unless you work in Norway, in which case, focus on delegating instead.
Writing about life and work means receiving a steady stream of research on how women in the workplace are viewed differently from men. These are academic and professional studies, not whimsical online polls, and each time I read one I feel deflated. What are women supposed to do with this information? Transform overnight? And if so, into what? How are we supposed to be assertive, but not, at the same time?
“It’s enough to make you dizzy,” said Ilene H. Lang, the president of Catalyst, an organization that studies women in the workplace. “Women are dizzy, men are dizzy, and we still don’t have a simple straightforward answer as to why there just aren’t enough women in positions of leadership.”
Catalyst’s research is often an exploration of why, 30 years after women entered the work force in large numbers, the default mental image of a leader is still male. Most recent is the report titled “Damned if You Do, Doomed if You Don’t,” which surveyed 1,231 senior executives from the United States and Europe. It found that women who act in ways that are consistent with gender stereotypes — defined as focusing “on work relationships” and expressing “concern for other people’s perspectives” — are considered less competent. But if they act in ways that are seen as more “male” — like “act assertively, focus on work task, display ambition” — they are seen as “too tough” and “unfeminine.”
Women can’t win.
In 2006, Catalyst looked at stereotypes across cultures (surveying 935 alumni of the International Institute for Management Development in Switzerland) and found that while the view of an ideal leader varied from place to place — in some regions the ideal leader was a team builder, in others the most valued skill was problem-solving. But whatever was most valued, women were seen as lacking it.
Respondents in the United States and England, for instance, listed “inspiring others” as a most important leadership quality, and then rated women as less adept at this than men. In Nordic countries, women were seen as perfectly inspirational, but it was “delegating” that was of higher value there, and women were not seen as good delegators.
Other researchers have reached similar conclusions. Joan Williams runs the Center for WorkLife Law, part of the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. She wrote the book “Unbending Gender” and she, too, has found that women are held to a different standard at work.
They are expected to be nurturing, but seen as ineffective if they are too feminine, she said in a speech last week at Cornell. They are expected to be strong, but tend to be labeled as strident or abrasive when acting as leaders. “Women have to choose between being liked but not respected, or respected but not liked,” she said.
While some researchers, like those at Catalyst and WorkLife Law, tend to paint the sweeping global picture — women don’t advance as much as men because they don’t act like men — other researchers narrow their focus.
Victoria Brescoll, a researcher at Yale, made headlines this August with her findings that while men gain stature and clout by expressing anger, women who express it are seen as being out of control, and lose stature. Study participants were shown videos of a job interview, after which they were asked to rate the applicant and choose their salary. The videos were identical but for two variables — in some the applicants were male and others female, and the applicant expressed either anger or sadness about having lost an account after a colleague arrived late to an important meeting.
The participants were most impressed with the angry man, followed by the sad woman, then the sad man, and finally, at the bottom of the list, the angry woman. The average salary assigned to the angry man was nearly $38,000 while the angry woman received an average of only $23,000.
When the scenario was tweaked and the applicant went on to expand upon his or her anger — explaining that the co-worker had lied and said he had directions to the meeting — participants were somewhat forgiving, giving women who explained their anger more money than those who had no excuse (but still less money than comparative men).
Also this summer, Linda C. Babcock, an economics professor at Carnegie Mellon University, looked at gender and salary in a novel way. She recruited volunteers to play Boggle and told them beforehand that they would receive $2 to $10 for their time. When it came time for payment, each participant was given $3 and asked if that was enough.
Men asked for more money at eight times the rate of women. In a second round of testing, where participants were told directly that the sum was negotiable, 50 percent of women asked for more money, but that still did not compare with 83 percent of men. It would follow, Professor Babcock concluded, that women are equally poor at negotiating their salaries and raises.
There are practical nuggets of advice in all this data. Don’t be shy about negotiating. If you blow your stack, explain (or try). “Some of what we are learning is directly helpful, and tells women that they are acting in ways they might not even be aware of, and that is harming them and they can change,” said Peter Glick, a psychology professor at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wis.
He is the author of one such study, in which he showed respondents a video of a woman wearing a sexy low-cut blouse with a tight skirt or a skirt and blouse that were conservatively cut. The woman recited the same lines in both, and the viewer was either told she was a secretary or an executive. Being more provocatively dressed had no effect on the perceived competence of the secretary, but it lowered the perceived competence of the executive dramatically. (Sexy men don’t have that disconnect, Professor Glick said. While they might lose respect for wearing tight pants and unbuttoned shirts to the office, the attributes considered most sexy in men — power, status, salary — are in keeping with an executive image at work.)
But Professor Glick also concedes that much of this data — like his 2000 study showing that women were penalized more than men when not perceived as being nice or having social skills — gives women absolutely no way to “fight back.” “Most of what we learn shows that the problem is with the perception, not with the woman,” he said, “and that it is not the problem of an individual, it’s a problem of a corporation.”
Ms. Lang, at Catalyst, agreed. This accumulation of data will be of value only when companies act on it, she said, noting that some are already making changes. At Goldman Sachs, she said, the policy on performance reviews now tries to eliminate bias. A red flag is expected to go up if a woman is described as “having sharp elbows or being brusque,” she said. “The statement should not just stand,” she said. “Examples should be asked for, the context should be considered, would the same actions be cause for comment if it was a man?”
In fact, Catalyst’s next large project is to advise companies on ways they can combat stereotypical bias. And Professor Glick has some upcoming projects, too. One looks at whether women do better in sales if they show more cleavage. A second will look at the flip side of gender stereotypes at work: hostility toward men.
E-mail: Belkin@nytimes.com
Skin Deep: Natural, Organic Beauty
By NATASHA SINGER, The New York Times, November 1, 2007
FOR Flavia Kawaja, an interior designer in Manhattan, a trip to the beauty department at Whole Foods Market comes not with a shopping list but with a mental list of what synthetic ingredients to avoid.
Ms. Kawaja won’t use antiperspirant made with aluminum derivatives, in case the urban legend that they could cause diseases like Alzheimer’s turns out to be true. She also steers clear of skin-care products with parabens, common antibacterial agents used as preservatives in some cosmetics, drugs and foods.
Although there have been no rigorous large-scale prospective clinical trials to show that parabens in cosmetics represent a risk to beauty consumers, a few studies have shown that exposure to parabens can cause reproductive changes in lab rodents.
By choosing cosmetics marketed as natural or organic, Ms. Kawaja errs on the side of caution. Even so, she admits that she’s unsure whether her careful choice of natural shampoos and sunscreens translates into health benefits.
“I don’t assume that organic automatically means good for you,” she said. “I mean, if you fry an organic potato, it’s still a French fry.”
Organic connoisseurs have long made a practice of reading food labels to weed out those grown with pesticides or that contain synthetic colors, flavors or preservatives. Now, in the wake of recent health scares over tainted pet food and toothpaste, some beauty mavens are seeking synthetic-free cosmetics in the belief that products made without industrial ingredients like petrochemicals ought to be healthier for you.
These newly minted label inspectors are fueling a boom in so-called natural and organic personal care products. Natural cosmetics market themselves as containing plant or mineral ingredients; organic products say they are made with agricultural ingredients grown without pesticides.
During the 12 months through Sept. 9, Americans spent $150 million on the top three mass-market natural personal care brands, including Burt’s Bees, Jason Natural Cosmetics and Tom’s of Maine, an increase of $51 million over the year before, according to Information Resources Inc., a market research firm. Meanwhile, sales of organic personal care items reached $350 million last year, an increase of $68 million over 2005, according to manufacturers’ data compiled by the Organic Trade Association, an industry group.
“We’re seeing an increased consciousness that what you put on your body is as important as what goes in your body,” said Jeremiah McElwee, the senior coordinator in charge of personal care at Whole Foods, which is the company’s fastest-growing department. “The biggest impetus for buying natural or organic body care is the perceived health benefit.”
It would seem logical to assume that common ingestible ingredients like olives or soy would naturally be healthier for the skin and body than hard-to-pronounce, multisyllabic industrial cosmetic ingredients like the preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone. But representatives for the government and the beauty industry, as well as some environmental activists, acknowledge that there is no published scientific proof to support the notion that plant-based cosmetics are safer, healthier or more effective for people.
“Consumers should not necessarily assume that an ‘organic’ or ‘natural’ ingredient or product would possess greater inherent safety than another chemically identical version of the same ingredient,” Dr. Linda M. Katz, the director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors, wrote in an e-mail message to this reporter. “In fact, ‘natural’ ingredients may be harder to preserve against microbial contamination and growth than synthetic raw materials.”
The confusion over the “truthiness” of the natural personal care market also stems from the lack of national standards.
The F.D.A., which regulates cosmetics, has never imposed standard definitions for marketing terms like natural and organic as they apply to grooming products, Dr. Katz said via e-mail. So manufacturers are free to use such terms on everything from a synthetic-based shampoo with one plant derivative to a synthetic-free face powder formulated with only minerals.
The agency requires manufacturers to ensure that cosmetics are safe for their intended use. But the agency leaves it up to manufacturers to decide which safety and efficacy tests to perform on ingredients and finished products.
John Bailey, the executive vice president for science of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, a trade group in Washington, said cosmetics are safe, whether their formulas contain synthetics or plants.
“On the most fundamental level, they are held to the same legal and regulatory standards,” said Dr. Bailey, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry.
But Jane Houlihan, the vice president for research of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit group in Washington, said the lack of established federal standards is responsible for consumer confusion over whether natural products provide tangible advantages or are simply a sop to green mind-sets.
“Even if a beauty product claims it is purely from the earth, you need to read the ingredient label,” Ms. Houlihan said.
Ms. Houlihan said increased consumer interest in natural products is driving a few manufacturers to include exotic plants in formulas that lack an established track record in the beauty industry. For example, she said, her group could not find published safety data on newer cosmetic ingredients like West Indian rosewood bark oil and white peony flower extract.
“Just because an ingredient comes from a plant does not necessarily make it safe to use in a cosmetic,” Ms. Houlihan said. “Tobacco, hemlock and poison ivy are all examples of plants that can be hazardous.”
Indeed, some dermatologists said that even natural ingredients that seem benign can cause skin allergies. For example, Dr. David A. Kiken, a chief dermatology resident at the school of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said he had seen skin irritation caused by tea tree oil, chamomile and green tea in cosmetics.
“Although the term natural botanical extracts inherently purports to have beneficial and benign properties, these extracts can cause adverse reactions in individuals,” Dr. Kiken wrote in a paper published in the American Journal of Contact Dermatitis.
In the absence of F.D.A. standards, dozens of beauty companies and stores are using words like botanical, herbal, natural, pure and organic to market brands, each using its own in-house definition.
For example, on www.sephora.com, the company distinguishes between botanical brands that use some plant ingredients; natural brands that eschew synthetic preservatives, colors and fragrances; and organic brands that employ some plant ingredients grown without pesticides.
Other brands style themselves as organic to signal ultimate wholesomeness. Even then, definitions vary widely. Some beauty companies simply employ organic in their brand names. Others promote certain ingredients that have been vetted by private companies that inspect organic foods.
A few brands — including Origins and Nature’s Gate — have even received certification for some products from the National Organic Program, the division of the Department of Agriculture whose logo appears on certified organic food products. Cosmetics are eligible to use such food seals if they contain at least 95 percent of certified organic ingredients that are agricultural products made from livestock or crops, grown and processed without chemical fertilizers, pesticides, growth hormones and antibiotics.
But people should not interpret even the U.S.D.A. Organic seal — www.ams.usda.gov/nop/FactSheets/Backgrounder.html — on cosmetics as proof of health benefits or of efficacy, said Joan Shaffer, a department spokeswoman. Government-accredited certifiers simply vet the manner in which these food ingredients are grown and processed, just as they would for a jar of organic tomato sauce, she said.
“The National Organic Program is a marketing program, not a safety program,” Ms. Shaffer said, likening the department’s organic seal to its grading system for beef. “Steak may be graded prime, but that has no bearing on whether it is safe or nutritious to eat.”
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
i'm on the mommy track!
Date: 2007-11-01 01:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 02:28 pm (UTC)I love that the person from whom I buy soap (Villianess, a small internet company) freely admits that "natural" is not always better/safer. Natural products can still be harsh, as I realized ten years ago with a run in with tea tree oil (people say use it for small cuts and stuff. I cleaned my nose ring with it, and within 12 hours has a weeping rash spreading across my face. Now I tell people do NOT spot treat acne with tea tree oil, it could be too harsh!).
I think if people are really concerned about what's in their beauty products, they should start with: eat right, drink lots of water, get enough sleep. Stop piling crap on your face, moisturize and try to find the minimal amount of products that work for you. If you have serious skin problems, see a doctor/health practicioner of your choice. I've pretty much moved myself away from a lot of products to just use Paula's Choice for my skin (and I now love Aromaleigh mineral make up).
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 05:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 01:26 pm (UTC)