Stop Calling Misogynistic Men Gay

"You hate women, you must be gay."

😒

For most of my twenties, I have constantly heard this snap back from women being used to attack misogynistic men. If a man has said some hateful or disparaging comments towards women, lest there be a bevy of retorts from women and men who will say that said guy is gay. 

Never mind that calling these men gay is homophobic (yes it is), it also absolves responsibility from actual gay men who are indeed misogynistic as well. Misogyny from men ≠ gay. And yes, even women are and can be very misogynistic.

It's quite bemusing how many people have consistently chosen to change someones sexual identity to suit their own homophobia, instead of tackling the misogyny that resulted their comments. You are adding to homophobia when you do this because you're further stigmatizing an already oppressed group.

Alongside tackling homophobia and the violent and physical effects that comes with it, language and terms are a major issue and contributes to the stigmatizing. Many people are already familiar with the slurs, like the F-word or the use of "homo" or "gay" as a pejorative. The use of the word "gay" to attack straight men who have negative preferential or critiques when it comes to women is passed its expiration date. 

It's unnerving when a lot of straight women constantly refer to men who trash women as gay, cause guess what? He's usually NOT gay, but straight. There are gay men who hate women, and through my own experiences, their hatred for women tends to manifest very differently.

Misogynists date, marry, and befriend women everyday. How often are people ever prepping to say to a guy "You hate women, must be straight?" Rarely if ever and a lot of times, that is the case. If men who hate women are gay, then men who like men hate women too? 

No one should ignore some of the problematic and misogynistic views gay men have about women in general, but a lot of women need to take accountability of their role in homophobia.

It's one that I think gets passed over.

Better of Remakes: "The Hills Have Eyes"

Hollywood remakes tend to get a bad rep because they're assumed to be lazy attempts at creativity, and an effort to destroy the original. And while I'm not a movie buff, to my knowledge, I can say the early 2000's was a decade of remakes, and real terrible ones too.

Recreations of classic, older films never bothered me but I can enjoy a film for what it is and what's presented. If I felt I wasn't interested however, I just wouldn't watch it. Kinda how I've never watched the Friday the 13th remake or the Halloween remake. Not that I won't watch it; but the interest just isn't there yet, and the expectation of disappointment is partly the reason.

But anyway, when I reflect on horror films with terrible remakes, I remember one horror film remake that I enjoyed; I enjoyed it in every respect. Funny enough, I didn't even know it was a remake until I recall looking up filming locations for the film and two movie titles with different release years came up; the '76 original and the '06 remake. The Hills Have Eyes is pretty self-explanatory. It's an amazing film from beginning to end. Summarizing the film's plot, it's based around a stranded family being terrorized by a deformed clan of a destitute family in the middle of a desert. It’s probably one of the few films where mutant, deformed-like characters aren’t zombies, but are actually a direct historical result of atomic test bombings.

The first film was created and directed by Wes Craven and released in 1977. A remake would be released in 2006, same plot and everything. But it is far more superior to the original, for many reasons. The characters, to the background story, to the conclusive ending. In the original film, we're immediately introduced to the family, who they are, and where they're going. The immediate difference in the characters is how much more likable they are in comparison to the ones in the original.

Doug, the hero of both films, is an even bigger hero in the remake. In the remake version, the film explores a portion that was not part of the original. It's a portion that extended for a good part of the movie. And thanks to advanced technology and makeup, the destitute clan seemed more gory than they appeared, allowing the audience to immediately see that they were deformed physically. And one particular scene with the father of the family gave viewers background as to why and how these people came to be.

This is just one of the examples of a good remake. It may seem as Hollywood just picks a film, and places good-looking people as leads for a sucky movie, but not always. It can't always be a miss. It's not just the horror genre either, thrillers have seen the same fate too, like When a Stranger Calls or The Hitcher. And those films weren't bad, but compared to their originals...yeah.

Two Types of Stereotypers

Confronting stereotypes has been a recurring topic that I've talked about several times.

Well, besides the stereotypes themselves, what's often left out from the subject are the stereotypers, a.k.a the people, who in my opinion are more responsible for the stereotype they ascribe to, as they help aid in its perpetuation.

In my personal experiences I've encountered two types of stereotypers—the ones who are willfully insecure, and the ones who are actually or unintentionally ignorant.

When confronting stereotypes, I've mostly noticed these two reactions. The first example is the stereotyper who decides to box you into a character based off assumptions they've formed and/or accepted—these people are insecure. Another example, is the stereotyper who boxes you into a stereotype and may backtrack what they've said or assumed, or try to make attempts to fix error and is embarrassed—they are simply ignorant, likely due to limited interaction, or frequent and erroneous interactions with certain people. 

Nonetheless, both types of people are tiring to deal with however, and neither is more better than the other—there is no lesser evil. Stereotypes are dehumanizing. It goes without saying that having to combat them and explain your humanity to anyone is stressful, exhausting, and will likely negatively impact your future interactions with other people who exhibit the same attitudes. 

Still, it also exposes how and why these people choose to stereotype in the first place, and opens up another discussion about privilege. Because....privileged people usually can, ascribe to, and participate and perpetuate stereotypes, while also avoiding the consequences of its harm. In many cases, they are unaffected by stereotypes that would negatively harm them, compared to lesser privileged groups that are heavily impacted socially by how people view them. This doesn't negate that underprivileged groups can't share the same misconceptions about groups who equally have harmful stereotypes.

But when I say insecure, it sounds vague but it's pretty simple. I find that the people who easily believe and use stereotypes about certain groups tend to not only believe them, but hold them dear for reasons. Typically they'll have these stereotypes pre-loaded and ready to dispense on people they want to attack or put in place. These stereotypes are stacked like a deck of cards, and it's holder will play a card, always pulling out stereotype after another, in an attempt to 'read' you. One can only wonder why. Although these stereotypes are not specifically targeted at them, it contributes in reassuring their confidence. This is what I've come to conclude based on how I've witnessed these attitudes play into action towards me.

When someone's self-worth is dependent on the degradation of another via stereotypes they will use those stereotypes to prop themselves up. In the same instance, that person will be ineffective without that crutch. It's in this moment, their reaction is crucial because it certifies their insecurity. I have watched people become upset, angered, disappointed, and in disbelief, when I did not fit a preconceived notion they designated to me. It's troubling, disturbing, but mostly pathetic, that rather than correcting themselves, the response is doubt.

What's also telling is why they choose to expect certain characteristics from the people they're stereotyping. To be so comfortable throwing people into specified expectations, whether you think they're good stereotypes or not, is intolerant and unreasonable. Again, this exposes the temperament of the stereotyper. Why are they so set in their beliefs, particularly when it's not affecting them? OR does it?

Below are a few questions to help posit where this attitude may come from; the insecure stereotyper will say yes to at least one of these or all:

• Were you propped up to believe you were better than certain people in specificity? 
• Does your confidence spike when people meet your stereotypical expectations? 
• Do you feel threatened or vexed when someone doesn't fit your stereotypes?
• Do you rely on negative stereotypes to advance yourself over others?
• Do you feel discounted when stereotyped people empower themselves?

As for those who are (possibly) unintentionally ignorant, they too can fall into the insecure category, but since their reactions tend to vary from the first, it's not the same. I've met people who were truly embarrassed by the stereotypes they've labeled onto someone. Some become shocked and correct themselves accordingly. There are even folks that ignorantly base their assumptions via confirmation from another person—likely a member of that stereotyped group. In this instance the may resort to the attitude of the insecure stereotyper, because they feel their expectations hold more weight because it came from the horses mouth. In addition to that, they may have also based their assumptions on what they've seen. If someone is presented with a continuous observation, it wouldn't be surprising if they believed what they see to be true. But this is flawed because no one person(s) will ever represent a large demographic group—but it happens all the time.

Stereotypes are harmful—they misinform and justify mistreatment of people who have no control over their existence and presence of these stereotypes. This is also why it's counterproductive to blame people for stereotypes or deriding people for not defying them. It's a daily task for me to acknowledge my own perceptions at times and keep my mouth shut when I know I'm also misinformed. No one can say they have never assumed something about someone, but don't act like you didn't have the power to change your thinking. Ask yourself why are you stereotyping, and whether it matters to your humanity? In my experiences, a lot of stereotypes placed onto me have been reflective of what people see on TV. If your only perception of certain people is through television, and you expect people you meet to be the same way, give yourself a huge slap in the face for being a narrow-minded idiot. Although the power of American media can't be underestimated, those who drink the kool-aid instead of challenging what they see or hear are responsible for why these stereotypes continue to exist; not the stereotyped.

The Problem with Separating the Art from the Artist

Off the top of my head, I'm not too sure how I came upon it, but it simply goes:

"separate the art from the artist"

This quote above is self-explanatory; detach the artist from their art, particularly in the moment of displeasure by something the artist has said or done. I began hearing this a few years ago, and have practiced it diligently, whenever I discovered something unpleasant from someone I liked (from a distance of course). In a world where celerities are treated in a god-like fashion, it can be challenging for one to go about dong this, especially in situations where the artist has done the unimaginable.

History has always showed that having power and status excuses guilty people from facing crimes and such. Many people have gotten away with just about anything simply because of who they are. With celebrities, because they are so admired and placed on pedestals, they can also abuse their star-power to evade crimes.

Recently, R&B singer R. Kelly has returned once again to the spotlight. The singer was found not guilty several years ago on charges that he sexually abused underaged girls. Even with a recorded video which showed proof that he engaged in sexual acts with a child, as well as witnesses identifying the victim and him in the tape, he served no time. He kept a low-profile after his trial ended in 2008, and emerged a few years after at a BET show in 2010, much to the disagreement of many, but also to the thrill of a lot more others who applauded his 'comeback.' Now, R. Kelly seems to be completely comfortable with the spotlight, and was recently on SNL performing with Lady Gaga in a bizarre and cringeworthy performance for her latest single. It would seem the public has forgotten about his abuse of young girls, and he is currently promoting the release of a new album.

And of course he's not the only celebrity who was able to evade crimes and continue work with little reaction despite vocal criticism. Roman Polanski is still revered despite his departure from the states to escape the crime of raping a 13 year old girl. Decades have passed, and he has never been extradited to the US to face charges.

Being aware of these incidents, and others, can put any fan of these artists' work in a difficult position, especially those who care about the dismay their victims had to endure afterwards. I don't support or apologize for child abuse at all. So it's not at all hard for me to stop supporting someone because of something they've done outside of their artistry. But for a while I didn't, and I coped with this by trying to simply separate the person from their work. But recently, I've seen how difficult it is to do, and fairly, now that I'm older I see how it was a dumb and foolish idea.

Aside from the reality that an artist on your no-support list may have created a favorite or life-changing song/movie that inspired you, it's the simple fact that trying to separate them from their work is problematic. In continuing to support just the work of an artist guilty of a reprehensible crime, you're still supporting said person. Because you can't really separate the art from the artist. It's impossible, and in ways dismissive (to the artist, not that it applies for these men). I mean, what are copyright and royalties for? They are there for a reason and they are also designated to a specific person(s) as attribution. That work will be theirs no matter what becomes of them. And this goes for all artists in general; would you want someone liking your art and not you, especially when your work/art is technically an extension of who you are? It just makes no sense to me.

As many have seen with victim blaming and shaming of others for things they can't control, it's quite obvious that supporting an accused artists work would be in junction with these forms of abuse. It would be an encouragement of support, and a disregard to the victims of their crimes. It also intersects with with the silencing of their victims. The silencing over disempowered people usually works with money. Millions of dollars have been used to settle, evade, and buy good lawyers that will help them slide through the loopholes of the justice system. This is exactly how Kelly silenced most of his victims.

So at my choice of being a former fan of R. Kelly and some of Polanski films, that meant not supporting or viewing future and past work. Which also meant that even when though Rosemary's Baby is one of the best classic horror films and a favorite of mine, it's still a Polanski film. The Pianist is another one of my favorite films by him, but its even more challenging for me to watch and enjoy it, knowing that it was filmed during Polanski's repatriation, unlike Rosemary's Baby which was filmed almost a decade before he fled. 

With R. Kelly it was easier for me to stop listening to his music. I wasn't much of huge fan really, but I did have a few of his songs on my iPod—songs that I grew up on and listened all the time. He became a popular artist by writing sultry, sexy R&B music a.k.a 'baby-making music.' But now I can't comfortably listen to his classic 'Bump and Grind' knowing it was during this peak he was circling schools preying on young girls who'd become his victims. I can't even listen to Aaliyah's debut song 'Age Aint Nothing But a Number,' when it's been a widely-known secret that he and an underaged Aaliyah were married; him 27 and her 15. And as much I partied, danced, and played the song 'Fiesta,' I also can't help that when I think about the lyrics, I wonder what women was he talking about pursuing sexual escapades with? It's saddening to even think, especially when the infamous video tape would surface around the release of that song.

It can take some effort to go about this since the entertainment industry is interconnected in many ways. In my choice to not listen or support future R. Kelly songs or appearances, I didn't realize it wouldn't just stop there. Just because his name isn't labeled on the product doesn't mean he's not an ingredient. R. Kelly isn't just a singer, but a producer and songwriter, which further expands his art. He's written songs for so many people like, Michael Jackson, Genuwine, Beenie Man, Whitney Houston, and he wrote Aaliyah's debut song. That would mean he's not the only person I would have to stop supporting.

So nah, I'm not going to help contribute in maintaining whatever legacy R. Kelly has left. And while I unfortunately discovered the details of the Polanski case after seeing his films, I'll avoid his future projects.

These people became famous and popular because of me, you, us, fans, them, and society. If the public at large wanted to erase them, they could. And that would also mean not supporting or encouraging their appearances and projects. That's how protest works and succeeds. Still, it's sad but not surprising R. Kelly is getting invited to shows and making appearances. He was found not guilty on the charges against him, and for some people, that's enough to completely forget his crimes. Not Guilty does not mean nor has it ever meant that anyone is innocent. And Polanski has lived a great life overseas, knowing why he is there in the first place.

The way I see it, I can't comfortably like anyones work of art, when I have a particular strong opinion of the artist. The problem really lies in the silly idea to even try separate them, what's the point when I'm still supporting them anyhow? Ugh. It hurts my head that people comfortably say, "(enter artist name's) music/movies are still great, even though he/she committed (enter crime)." For Polanksi, there's hope that a time may come where he may be brought to justice. For R. Kelly however, it's sad enough that he was able to walk, and probably won't be tried again unless another victim possibly comes forward.

They aren't the only ones either, Michael Jackson(?), Tupac, etc; all artists accused of reprehensible crimes where evidence was strong against them. 

Abusive Terms, Sayings, Responses

Verbal abuse is damaging, whether people feel like it's less harmless than physical abuse. Both types can have detrimental effects on anyone, they can come in the form of bullying, arguing, domestic violence, and more recently cyber-bullying.

I'm not so sure if I can say people today have become desensitized or simply unconcerned, but abusive language is so normalized in the way people communicate, sometimes you may not even notice it and why it may be abusive.

Have you ever been in, heard, or seen a discussion about something upsetting, where the end result (or expected result) is a predictable comment? Think about it:

Don't shoot the messenger.
Why are you surprised?
There's truth to stereotypes!

Notice anything? All of these quotes have one thing in common—they are dismissive. These are just a few of the many responses people may get usually in a serious conversation, and people don't even see why it's not the right response.

Like, this study is really racist! Don't shoot the messenger.
Wow, can't believe they'd say that? Why are you surprised?
Why is that the only assumption you make? There's truth to stereotypes!

Over the years I've realized while online discourse can be thought provoking, enlightening, and eye opening, it also invites room for abusive people to find victims to attack and silence. It's probably the reason why I've shied away from talking about certain subjects because I just won't engage with people unwilling to see things from a certain viewpoint.

As an adult I've had to teach myself to unlearn these sayings and correct myself too. It's just a step forward in improving my interactions with people, especially younger people.

Halloween Costumes: Do's, Dont's, and Why

STARS poster

It’s that time of year again. While it’s not an actual official holiday, the commercialism, creativity and association with an activity children love to participate in—Halloween might as well be a national holiday.

Halloween gives us the opportunity to be bold and creative with dress-up ideas. But it’s also the unfortunate time where we see particularly offensive costume ideas, that may not only offend some racial and ethnic groups, but perpetuate stereotypes that negatively appropriate aspects of one’s culture.

Two years ago a student organization (STARS) at Ohio University launched a campaign called ‘We Are Not a Costume’ highlighting racially insensitive costume ideas that typically stereotype certain racial and ethnic groups. Their slogan was, ‘You wear a costume for one night, I wear the stigma for life.’ This is relevant for people of minority groups who are grossly impacted by few and limited portrayals, or vast and over-saturated ones.

Before you pull out the sensitivity card, try to understand why some people will take issue with certain costumes.

If one chooses to be a ‘geisha’ for Halloween, keep in mind that the West turned an entertaining figure into a sex stereotype that some Asian women have to deal with in reality. This is important especially as this stereotype was heightened this year when a musical band released a video for a controversial song called ‘Asian Girlz,’ which many considered to be fetishizing women of East Asian descent.

If you choose to be a ‘suicide bomber’ for Halloween, it is not only insensitive to survivors and victims of such acts, but this is the same stereotype forces men who appear brown, or of Middle-Eastern and Asian descent, to undergo extra searches at airports, or become victims of surveillance tactics because he fits a profile.

If you choose to be a ‘Mexican’ for Halloween by dressing up with a sombrero and a mustache, know first that it is absolutely preposterous to be a nationality, especially one that includes people of all different racial backgrounds. And by doing this, you’re painting an entire ethnic group with a broad brush, one that deems them ‘foreign’ and subject to dehumanizing racial profiling stops.

If you choose to be ‘Black’ for Halloween, either a real or a fictional person, consider not using makeup or an Afro wig for accuracy. You will be entering rocky territory such as the offensive ‘Blackface,’ a dehumanizing portrayal used in minstrel shows that created negative and harsh portrayals of Black Americans. And consider that you’re basically wearing someone's skin color as a costume, a skin color that deems a disproportionate amount of people in this group, suspicious or threatening. As for hair—hair discrimination is a real thing. Last month a young girl was sent home from school because her naturally kinky locs were not part of school policy standards.

If you choose to be Native American for Halloween— know that Native culture in the U.S. was nearly obliterated by colonization. Never mind that there is currently a national debate on whether the NFL team, Washington Redskins, should change their mascot and team name due to r*dskin being a pejorative term used against Native Americans, with redface being a racist trope.

If you choose to be a redneck for Halloween—know that this term is typically used to distinguish Whites based on social class and association with racism and backward ideals. It’s also a negative term typically aimed at Southern White Americans, so while it may not be racist unlike the previous ones due to dynamics, it certainly is classist.

There is much to consider before deciding on a costume or who to be. It’s not to say you can’t be a person of another race, but do consider the disdain and stereotypes certain groups are subject to just by their mere existence. And know what constitutes redface, blackface, brownface, etc;

Amazing, cool, creative, and stunning costumes exist. Don’t think you can’t be a certain character, just reconsider the stigma that is associated with certain groups, and avoid participating in the misrepresentation of someone’s culture. Ask yourself, is this costume a stereotype someone of this group battles everyday?
 
Happy Halloween!

'Nude' in Fashion, Beauty, & Culture

For far too long the term nude (sometimes skin or flesh-colored), has taken on a different meaning than it should in the fashion and beauty industry. In discussions about how race, particularly Whiteness (via White supremacy & dominance) affected our perception of what is beautiful, at times what's left out of the conversation is how it created a default look that seems to be widely accepted by general population. In the efforts to unravel how society can change this attitude, it is often met with criticism, faux science, then derailed, dismissed, and ended with a predictable compliments, which further pushes the subject under a filthy rug. This allows the issue to continue remaining.

Rather than be protective of this attitude, society should examine and analyze not just why we view beauty through a Eurocentric lens, but how that determines and decides what is default. Most particularly, when it comes to universal terms becoming synonymous with whiteness, e.g. nude.

To grasp why whiteness is by standard default, it should be explained how White supremacy thrived, and still continues to flourish on a global scale. It was allowed to rule and control, not through a prior popular consensus, but due to enforcement. The methods of White supremacy worked by denigrating, dehumanizing, and mocking all that is non-White, usually at the expense of Blacks/Africans. It has been used as a measuring to stick to validate the worthiness of people, their humanity, and aesthetic. Today one can argue we celebrate differences and embrace diversity, but not long ago these differences deprived and shamed those who couldn't fall in line with the 'standards.' Inability to obtain set standards continued ridicule, and birthed Black stereotypes (among others) like Mammy, Sambo, Coon, Mandingo, the Black Buck, pickaninny, Jezebel, Sapphire, and the list goes on. Today, we see how the prevalence of this degradation has been reflected in ads, marketing, film, beauty, and fashion, and in various cultures in general.

It was further succeeded by oppressed groups internalizing these stereotypes and images, and viewing themselves through the same lens. The power of the media cannot be underestimated, as it is and continues to be the main enforcer of negative portrayals and misconceptions. As it has, the continuance has thrived and so has its narratives, which continue to plague minority groups.

Moving on into beauty and fashion, I'd say about 99.8% of the time, when the word nude is being used to describe a clothing item or cosmetic product, the color in question is beige, or a similar color that matches the skin-tone Whites typically have. While nude should be a universal color, and surely all lighter persons would not match the commonly accepted nude, there is however an industry that would be there to make and produce colors allowing Whites to have various options. This extends far beyond than you'd imagine. But what about the folks who are darker? Of course, population and consumer demographic plays a role in production, but why aren't companies tapping into a much ignored demographic? The Black buying-power is estimated to be $1.4 trillion in 2014. Using one example, New York state is in the top states for the largest Black markets. In addition to that, New York is also one of the top fashion capitols of the world and also has one the largest Black populations in the U.S. As a native New Yorker, I can't say I've seen any strides, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this.

50 shades of beige foundation

It's everywhere, and you may not realize it until you put it into perspective. Go to a pharmacy for bandaids—what color is that bandaid? A lightish beige color right? Maybe now we have clear bandaids, but why were they typically lightish beige? And why had they been accepted as the default bandaid color? I'm not an inventor of sorts, but I'm very sure the marketing brain behind clear bandaids created them so they could match anyone regardless of their complexion. But I must also wonder why was creation of a clear bandaid a solution, rather than creating various colors from the get? Skin-color specific bandaids do exist by the way, but I honestly don't find them as much as beige ones.

Next is makeup. For the women who wear it, when you see nude lip colors, what skin color is that nude closest too? And do you not notice that only one type of color is represented? Foundation too, though these are color specific.

50 shades of beige as they call it, a phenomenon of non-White women, in this case Black, being unable to find foundation colors that match their skin complexion. And usually, the foundation colors provided have various colors and types for White women, rarely any for browner women. See the picture to the right. The young woman in the photo is darker than all of the foundation colors (to the right) available.

Nude mannequins

Then we have mannequins which are typically a reflexion of a nude White person, modeling and showcasing clothing marketed towards everyone. In the case of the photo to the left, sometimes the mannequins are just plain white nude in color, and in those rare observations, you can actually find a dark brown one. Nowadays lots of mannequins are colors not reflective of anyones skin tone.

It's pretty much the same for undergarments. Nude is different per person, but not in the fashion and beauty industry. Nude by default is beige and a reflection of the skin tone the White majority shares, or is similar to. It's been so ingrained in me to view this color as nude, I never questioned it before. As a dark brown-skinned woman, it's quite the opposite for me. Everything from stockings, undies, lipstick, lipgloss, and such that are advertised as nude have only one race/color in mind. How am I going to wear a nude-like clothing item or cosmetic, that is the 'nude' of another woman? My nude is not that nude.

Venus Williams' nude shorts

Sure there are nude-like undergarments or clothes for darker women, but they are called what its color is, e.g. pecan, brown, etc; Rarely are these colors referred to as nude, unless otherwise stated. Take the Venus William's controversy a few years ago over her nude-like shorts under her tennis attire. Obviously this would be an example of her nude. But I'm willing to bet, if I referred to Venus' shorts as nude, a lot of people would try to debate that with me. This is why calling light beige nude is problematic. It's centered around Whiteness and people seem to think and accept that's what the word means.

Nude lingerie by aerie

Not long ago I received an email from American Eagle's aerie line. It's a line of lingerie, activewear, and lounge clothing. The email subject mentioned nude lingerie. But since I'm so used to seeing what society deems as acceptable 'nude,' I quickly scrolled through the email not expecting to be interested in what was going to be promoted.

But it wasn't until I noticed that the nudes came in more than just light and bright colors. I did have some criticism about the obvious hierarchy displayed (light at the top/dark at the bottom—also related the subject), but nonetheless I was still shocked that a retail store I've been a faithful customer to, had not only been recently representing women that look like me in their ads, but also had a 'nude' color that may actually look nude on me. Still, if you notice in the photo to the left, there are only two dark brown colors and I guess, two light brown ones. And as per usual, there are four even lighter ones. However, as I previously mentioned, I don't want to exclude that production of nude as beige is likely determined by the demographic of the consumers.

Finding nude colors that represent my skin tone can be a challenge. They are either too light or too dark, or in my case with some foundations, too red. Thankfully, as times change, there are companies who are inclusive of creating nude colors not specific to one type. MySkins is a lingerie website that caters to over 20 nude colors—a whole lot more than aerie's eight.

At times, the general attitude towards a topic like this would be shrugged off as an unimportant issue. And I can't deny it myself, I never thought it was an issue. However I was wrong. When you read between the lines, the normalization of nude is one of the many adverse affects of Whiteness as the dominant value. This topic is just as important to dismantling the dominance of Whiteness as it is a direct result of Eurocentric ideals via White supremacy. Nude should vary, because it does. And because of this normalizing of beige as nude, it has become an actual color type and name.

See for yourself.

Same goes for any reference to flesh-colored. Because whose flesh color are you talking about?