meh

I haven’t really felt like posting anything on here, or indeed anywhere else, for the last week. Partly thinking about Hélène and her loss. Partly work. I went back on MUA today, you know properly, actually logging on and reading stuff rather than skimming through in 10 seconds and thinking “vapid vapourous vacuous ****s” and deciding not to log in cos otherwise I’d write something that was true, but also hurtful.

However.

There were a couple of interesting things turned up today.

Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.27.54 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.28.21 PMand also this

Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.30.25 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.30.41 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.30.57 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.31.16 PMwhich brings us back to this epic thread, of a month or so ago: I still think not trolling, just someone who’s looking for some advice and assistance. Any other tips, feel free to comment and I’ll pass them along; or go make them yourself on MakeupAlley!

Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.34.17 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.34.32 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.34.48 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.35.10 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.35.31 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.35.46 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.36.11 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.36.29 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.36.51 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.37.07 PM Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 2.37.27 PM

5 comments

  1. mej5s

    She makes my head hurt. I fell into the “oh let me try to be helpful” trap but there’s no helping that one. Where’s Nitromusk with her burqa when you need her?

    • gingerama

      I know. Me too. But I *have* to give the benefit of the doubt (though despise sock-puppets who don’t bother to read a whole thread before diving heedless into a perceived fray). I felt, and continue to feel, very sorry for her. I know–we’ve seen other more extreme cases of that recently–how psychologically distressing and damaging skin issues can be. How they screw with perspective. Become obsessive. Lead to paranoia. And to what looks like troll-like behaviour; but then again, anything that’s overly-earnest, passionate, sincere, point-labouring, pedantic, etc. looks like that too.

      • gingerama

        Picking up from here, and for any other readers out there…:

        JADE:

        YES! We did talk about it then! I’ve heard a lot good about Cicalfate, that’s why I tried it. Went to the drugstore today and there they said it too that it was great.

        Stop being so aggressive towards me. You were aggressive back in February too. If you are gonna be that then you can stop reading my things.

        The Avene Professional Trixera Plus Selectiose Emollient Cream is really bad for me.

        If YOU remember, I said that I’m allergic to soybean… And yet there’s soybean oil in Avene Professional Trixera Plus Selectiose Emollient Cream.
        And soja extract AND coconut oil.

        Avene doesn’t test on animals.
        “The European cosmetic legislation (directive 76/768/CEE amended the 1th March 2003) requires manufacturers to use alternatives methods to test new raw cosmetic material and finished products.

        In compliance with this directive, we stopped tests on animals many years ago.

        In practice, to test our products to ensure that they meet our high quality and safety standards, we use existing data concerning the safety of the specific ingredients used in the products. The tolerance of our finished products is then verified by tests on healthy volunteers.

        Finally, we carry out physico-chemical and bacteriological tests to verify the identity on each batch of raw material delivered to our factories. This ensures the purity and quality of the ingredients entering our formulas.

        These types of tests are also carried out on each batch of finished products to guarantee the safety and quality of each and every product.”

        [Continuation: ]

        AVI:

        Jadey84 — Laboratoires Pierre Fabre, Avene’s parent company, does test on animals as they produce pharmaceutical products as well which require testing even with the new legislation.

        Additionally, Avene products are sold in the PRC (China) where testing is required for cosmeceutical products, such as those produced by Avene.

        The only thing not tested would be Avene skincare products produced in Europe for consumption by EU members.

        I hope this information helps in making a decision

        As far as products go, try Lavera or Logona as they both produce a fragrance-free line (Lavera Neutral and Logona Free) which meet your requirements and should be easy to get in Sweden

        JADE:

        I understand. But if I live in EU, and buy my products here.. They are not tested? Cause if they are, I’m not gonna buy them any more…

        AVI:

        The company is still conducting testing even if they aren’t testing the products they sell to you specifically.

        Proctor & Gamble don’t test all of their products either but because they test SOME of their products, I won’t buy from them.

        It’s a decision you need to make for you as to what you are comfortable with.

        For me , as there are options that are not tested anywhere, I choose to give my money to those companies.

        JADE:

        Ok, then I’m not so comfortable with it. As I won’t buy from The Body Shop since they are owned by Loreal, who do test on animals, even if TBS does not.

        Then I’m gonna have to see what brand there is that doesn’t test on poor animals.

        JUICY:

        I agree – the tone on this board can be quite strong at times. People come on here to discuss and ask for suggestions. We are all learning and trying to better ourselves. If you have given someone an answer to something and they are asking the same question again – maybe they are asking for some other’s opinions.

        GINGER:
        all true, sure but in this case several people offered suggestions–and not just any old thing (“opinions are like…s, everyone’s got one”), but informed, researched, serious advice. See the original thread (reference elsewhere in this present thread).

        But a more important, and positive, point:

        See, the thing is, people on here (and other MUA boards) care. Sure, there’s trolls and sock-puppets and people who like starting fights and people who like jumping into what look to them like exciting confrontations (and then getting the wrong end of the stick). But there’s lots of people who mean well.

        I answered you, jadey84, both times, because I wanted to help. This looked/looks to me like someone who–just like you say–is looking for help, is asking for advice. I didn’t have to reply. Neither did anyone else. No-one ever does.

        But jadey84, I felt for you. I feel for you. I know how painful and irritating skin issues can be. I hate seeing people suffering; if there’s anything I can do, I’d want to do it.

        In this case, there was: some advice. And sometimes advice means calling a spade a spade, and being straight-up, factual, and direct. That’s not aggression: as any dictionary search will reveal. Neither aggressive nor defensive. Nor in any way emotionally or power-relations-loaded, or indeed negatively or positively loaded: it’s just simple plain speaking. Jadey84, juicystars, I’m sorry if you read any aggression into what I wrote: none was intended. I said what I meant, and meant what I said, no more and no less. Seriously, honestly: my only intention was, is, and I hope will continue to be: to help, when I can.

        The other thing is, back to “opinions”: This is the great strength about MUA: not just a (single) source of knowledge (and one that might want status and power as THE single source of knowledge). But shared wisdom, from a large number of individuals with–when you add it all up together–massive quantities of experience, research, thought, and collection and reading of factual data. And sharing is the operative important thing here: that people here *want* to help, *want* to share, and that that’s vitally important and one of the best things about MUA!

        Hope that helps, or at least helps clarify; jadey84, continuing good wishes for good luck in your skincare quests!

        FYI on the Pierre Fabre group (Avène, A-Derma, Ducray, Klorane, etc.) not being cruelty-free: I was really bummed to find that out, as they make some of the best skincare I’ve ever used, and stuff that kept even bad eczema in check and soothed; I’d used their stuff for decades, since I was an infant. (Hence also reviews in p’ville.)

        Here’s the most recent information I’d got. It’s from August 2011; the first item was passed on to me in early 2012, and that was when I stopped buying and using Pierre Fabre products:
        http://archedenoelle.over-blog.com/
        http://arnelae.forumactif.com/

        Here is the most recent information I’ve found directly from Pierre Fabre: http://www.recherche-pierre-fabre.com/

        NB: only “dermocosmetic” products are tested in vitro (and not on animals): PF make other products, which do not count as “cosmetic,” which are tested on animals.

        There will be some grey areas; and there will, of course, be ingredients which have been tested on animals in the past to determine maximum dose, for toxicology reports. Ex. water… and this is my big bug and greatest gripe, that so few cruelty-free companies have the honesty (or the historical knowledge) to acknowledge that they are using ingredients that have been tested on animals to lethal doses in the past.

        And hence why I have more respect for companies that do, and that support a Fixed Cut-Off Date Policy (like Beauty Without Cruelty): ex. the BUAV, who are one of the oldest cruelty-free campaign groups (I may be wrong, but I think they were the first), and behind the campaigning that has at long last led to the EU ban coming into effect a couple of weeks back. On which, for further information and links to primary sources, see: http://www.makeupalley.com/m_155133926

        [Adding, the content from that latter old post (which information is on this here blog too); this was when I got all ratty & ranty when PETA unjustly claimed the credit for the EU ban…:]

        on the ban on the import and sale of animal-tested cosmetic products and ingredients in the EU: Direct information from the parties immediately concerned (as that PETA newsflash, while FANTASTIC GREAT NEWS!!!, is inaccurate in several respects):

        1. the press release from EUROPA.eu (the official website of the European Union): “Full EU ban on animal testing for cosmetics enters into force” (2013-03-11): http://europa.eu/rapid/press-releas

        2. the European Commission main “from the horse’s mouth” information: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/

        3. (less direct, but the main global news agency) Reuters press release, 2013-02-21: http://www.reuters.com/article/

        4. from the BUAV (British Union Against Vivisection), who along with The Body Shop were the original and continuing campaigners for this change in legislation, a campaign going back decades. I’m glad the change is being widely reported, but I am not glad to see PETA make like this is their thing and ride on others’ long hard work (and, forgive me, but also be rather American about it in an uncomfortably global-imperialist way). Let’s give credit where credit is properly, honestly, truly due:
        “EU set to ban animal testing for cosmetics forever“ (2013-01-31): http://www.buav.org/article/

        5. BUAV again: “The BUAV celebrates the end of animal-tested cosmetics in Europe ” (2013-03-11): http://www.buav.org/article/

  2. mej5s

    I always appreciate your knowledge management skills. I just can’t be bothered half the time to organize information in my personal interests with the same rigor I would apply to academic interests. You manage to have everything thoughtfully prepared for easy insertion at the right moment into conversation. Kudos!

    • gingerama

      LOL: I just write fast… and then try to remember to reread in case of need for editing before pressing “send”… hadn’t prepared at all, alas! I’m sure all things would be much better, smoother, clearer, etc. if I had. Or indeed if everyone did, every time. At least thinking while speaking is a start, thinking just before one speaks too.

      I guess one issue that’ll remain An Issue is what happens in that thinking stage, though. KWIM? Like some of our favourite MUAers who say “but I did research it,” and yes in their own way and to their own standards they did. And it seemed like serious hard work done properly. Ditto “but I did read that,” “but I did think about it,” “but this IS an independent rational decision.”

      Which all poses conundrums on the limits of tolerance, patience, and philanthropic goodwill.

      Mind you, some colleagues and I are seriously contemplating not only inserting a week on research methodology into *every* course we teach (not just grad seminars on research methodology), but including within that a serious heavy-duty session on how to Google. We’ve all wrung our hands in despair, however, on leading horses to water but not being able to make them drink, trying to make silk purses out of sows’ ears, and the tragedy of the unteachability of Common Sense. I’d been thinking about all these things a fair bit recently, so it’s quite possible some of that has infiltrated other areas of discourse. As it were.

Care to reply?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s