In thinking about make-up, I remembered something from 4th grade, when we did a wax museum to honor great women from history. Each girl was teamed up with a boy, and then we wrote a report on the woman we chose. Afterwards, we put on a wax museum in the auditorium, where the girls dressed up as wax mannequins of the woman and the boys gave a short presentation on them to people who came by to visit our "exhibit."
Anyway, to become "wax" mannequins we dressed up as the woman in question, and then some volunteer parents put make-up on us, followed by a slathering of vaseline on top of it to give the wax effect. I didn't mind the vaseline, actually (I liked that I could stick my fingernails in it) but I *hated* the make-up. I hate the way it felt, I hate the way it smelled... When it came time to put lipstick on me I complained. "I don't want to wear lipstick!"
"You need to. Otherwise it will look like you don't have lips."
This I doubt. Why someone would presume that someone didn't have lips is hardly intuitive to me. But the question that no one ever answered is "WHY DOES THIS MATTER?"
It wasn't answered for me then, and I've yet to encounter an explanation since. I don't see why it's so important to show the world I have lips. And I certainly never figured out why I didn't get to be the one to control my appearance. It was extremely unpleasant sitting there, being forced to be made up in a way I wasn't comfortable with. It's not something I've let anyone do to me since.
Edit 6/26: Here's a picture from the wax museum. Even though time has aged the photo quality, notice how you can still see my lips! Thank goodness for that...
Cathy as Golda Meir, 1984.
Comments (7)
If you hadn't put the lipstick on, I would've never known that Golda Meir had lips.
Posted by Koichi | June 27, 2005 8:45 PM
Posted on June 27, 2005 20:45
Isn't it amazing the striking resemblance she had to a nine-year old girl?
Posted by Cathy | June 27, 2005 9:05 PM
Posted on June 27, 2005 21:05
Is it just me or is there land off the west coast of Israel on the map in that picture? It looks suspiciously like the Sinai peninsula has moved to the west coast of Israel. Perhaps a sneak attack by Egypt that Ms. Meir/Gellis will have to fend off?
Posted by Mike | June 30, 2005 12:20 AM
Posted on June 30, 2005 00:20
That is indeed the Sinai peninsula as part of the Israeli map.
I should get points for historical accuracy.
By 1984 it had been returned to Egpyt. But in Golda Meir's day (er, at least some of those days) it was very much Israeli territory.
What I don't remember is where I got the map. I think my partner Ben may have gotten it from his parents.
Posted by Cathy | June 30, 2005 6:27 AM
Posted on June 30, 2005 06:27
Oh, the problem isn't that it's in a map of Israel. What I was saying was that it looks like the Sinai peninsula is off the west coast of Israel, rather than being to the southwest and connected by land.
Posted by Mike | July 4, 2005 8:44 AM
Posted on July 4, 2005 08:44
Israel was considering building a train line to the Sinai, so naturally it required some creative geographic planning.</inside joke only Mike will get, sorry>
BTW, Mike, are you the kind of person who always thought Alaska was located in the Gulf of Mexico, about the size of Texas (maybe smaller) and only slightly larger than the nearby Hawaiian archipelago?
Posted by Cathy | July 4, 2005 9:21 AM
Posted on July 4, 2005 09:21
Well, it's one thing for cartographers to move Alaska around, given that a huge freaking (yet boring) country separates it from the rest of the USA. However, the Sinai is directly connected to the rest of Israel, which isn't even that big to begin with. It doesn't seem like too much to ask that they fit it in (perhaps zooming out a little) rather than drastically altering Israel's strategic position.
Actually, while they're at it they should've made Israel an island, which would help it tremendously. Although it would of course make international train travel impossible...
Posted by Mike | July 5, 2005 8:08 AM
Posted on July 5, 2005 08:08