I argue that she has done more for women than any writer of books or professor of women's and gender studies (WAGS) could ever hope to do. Mary Kay Cosmetics has produced more wealthy women than any other corporation ever has. But don't label Ash as a feminist just because she was a strong, successful woman. Remember that she sold cosmetics, the most sinister weapon of the patriarchy, and rewarded her employees with mink coats, diamond rings and pink Cadillacs.
Mary Kay's philosophy was simple. She told her employees to put God first, family second and career third. "With your priorities in order, press on," she said, "and never look back. You can, indeed, have it all."
And, for thousands upon thousands of women, she was right. Selling those pink compacts became a way of life, a subculture, a distinctively American movement that got women out of their homes without depriving them of their femininity.
This was, and is, the genius of Mary Kay's vision. Women didn't have to dress in suits, play the game of office politics or compete for more money. They did not have to commute, pack a lunch or cringe at the company gym.
And what was the vehicle for this revolution in women's career choice? Lipstick. Nail polish. Eyeshadow. The traditional enemies of all that the feminist movement of the 1960s stood for.
I hear the rumblings from the Miss Maccabees and Miss Mahoneys of the world, but hang in there, ladies-I'm getting to the good part. Here at Amherst, our women practice an extraordinary amount of common sense when it comes to using traditional feminine products like eyeliner. They understand that there is nothing inherently wrong with painting one's face. Not every woman does it to get a man. Some women choose to forego makeup altogether-it takes too much time, someone could lose an eye to a mascara wand, etc, etc. Rarely do you hear of a woman eschewing makeup because she doesn't want to be an agent of the patriarchy.
In fact, revolt against the old-school feminist's denouncement of femininity has come from the left itself. In an article I dug up on hercurve.com, a website devoted to weekly columns on lesbian lifestyles, Dasha Klimova tells the story of her struggle for tolerance from the Very Offended set.
"They were so serious and no-nonsense: no makeup, hairy legs, flannel shirts. I worried that if I didn't look like that, I wouldn't be taken seriously," she wrote on her website. After years of fretting that she didn't look "lesbian" enough or "feminist" enough, she told her peers to take a flying leap.
"I want shoe sales at Nordstrom, Stila lipstick, frilly black lace panties and cute summer sundresses," she declared. "I'm not bowing to the demands of society to fit in and look like 'a real woman.' I'm doing what comes naturally to me."
This seems to be the attitude of most self-proclaimed feminists at Amherst. (Yes, there are exceptions to every rule.) I applaud you all for doing what comes naturally-for not conforming to anyone's idea (be it that of Gertrude Stein or Britney Spears) of what female beauty is or should be. As much as it pains us to admit it, modern feminists have more in common with Mary Kay's vision of feminine beauty than Catherine MacKinnon's. And there's nothing wrong with that. Hold your head high in the beauty aisles of CVS.
And don't be afraid to squeal girlishly when I tell you that marykay.com is having a totally bitchin' sale right now.