Is the science behind skincare vacuous and deserving of criticism? Are women who take an interest in it falling for unfounded claims?
Last week, online magazine generated a flurry of responses and disgruntled social media posts with its article 鈥溾��. It essentially answered yes to those questions, by decrying a recent reinvigoration of this part of the cosmetic industry as founded on little more than bad science, capitalism and status anxiety.
The piece argued that skincare has increasingly become the 鈥渢hinking woman鈥檚 quest鈥�, founded on 鈥渂uying things, and displaying them for others to see鈥� and that 鈥渟kin has withstood millions of years of evolution without the aid of tinctures and balms鈥�. It cited a limited number of academic papers and experts claiming skincare has no basis in science, before claiming that current skincare routines are tantamount to 鈥渃hemical violence鈥�.
Advertisement
There was a somewhat muddled thesis, arguing skincare is both fundamentally ineffective, while suggesting it might also be too effective, resulting in unpleasant chemical burns and other side-effects. The tone was condescending, with an implication that the products are frivolous and their users vain and underinformed.
Yet interest in the science of male 鈥渧anity鈥� issues, such as hair loss, goes mostly unchallenged; indeed, it is often reported as serious science. The has been validated. An interest in this isn鈥檛 viewed as vapid 鈥� and there is an assumption that those engaging in building muscle understand the principles behind their activities.
Based in science
Skincare, too, , with peer-reviewed dedicated to the subject. Sure, like any highly commercial application of science, a fair chunk of research is paid for by industry. But that doesn鈥檛 make it wrong.
For example, , agents found in many anti-ageing products, have been found to influence cellular growth with long-term benefits. , found in exfoliants and acne creams, have been proven effective for multiple skin disorders and in broadly improving cosmetic appearance. , a staple in moisturisers and serums, have been found to significantly improve skin elasticity and skin structure.
Users know this: much of the discourse and content about skincare on social media and is very much about breaking down and demystifying the . This is necessary, as manufacturer claims can be hyped or hidden in a haze of technical language designed to impress, and don鈥檛 have to meet the standards applied to medicines.
Skin care, cosmetics and make-up have a hampered relationship with science. For example, L鈥橭real faced criticism for its . Its funding of fellowships and investments in schemes encouraging girls to enter careers in science and technology was written off as a gesture to enhance its brand. The European Commission鈥檚 initiative to get girls interested in science, 鈥�鈥�, was attacked for its 鈥榯easer鈥� video, laden with cosmetics. It featured such risible stereotypes that the EC had to deny it was satire.
However, the video could have been (albeit, exceptionally clumsily) trying to articulate that wearing heels and working in science aren鈥檛 mutually exclusive and that cosmetics are the product of scientific intervention. It seems a Catch 22: writing off the tropes of stereotypical femininity as vain or crass is surely sexist, and yet exploiting these tropes to persuade girls into careers in science feels condescending, even infantilising.
There seems a common thread: an assumption that women are uninformed and lacking in the ability to engage with scientific principles or pursue a career in STEM. With little aligning women with science in the public eye and a persistent underrepresentation in the sector, we are left with little more than worn cliches and hamfisted attempts to convince otherwise. Oh, and of course: our luxury Korean .
