When is having "inadequate or not enough eyelashes" a medical condition that should be treated with prescription drugs? When it's labeled hypotrichosis, a condition in which hair does not grow at all in places where it's supposed to. Eyelashes function as little brooms for our eyeballs that sweep away dust and dead skin cells. They also grant wishes*. That's why people with hypotrichosis need Latisse, a prescription liquid that people with this terrible affliction dab on their eyelids to make eyelashes grow where there were no eyelashes before.
Cue Brooke Shields. I bet you didn't even know that Brooke Shields never had eyelashes until about 16 weeks before the above commercial was filmed. That's because she uses Latisse, and also because she's always had eyelashes.
Now, there are diseases that cause people to not grow, (hypotrichosis), lose (alopecia), and pull out (trichotillomania) their hair, including their eyelashes. Hair loss is also a side effect of chemotherapy. This product could probably help people in those situations. But Latisse is not marketed that way. It's advertised as a cosmetic drug for women who are, apparently, supposed to feel insecure about their eyelashes. The company uses the term "hypotrichosis" and defines it so narrowly to only pertain to eyelashes that aren't long and thick enough (whatever that means), making eyelashes that don't conform to our society's beauty standards a disease. On top of all the other parts of our bodies we're supposed to hate (i.e., all of it), now we have to make a doctor's appointment to check the adequacy of our eyelashes. What the hell?
* Seriously, the company is donating $1 million to the Make a Wish Foundation.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Latisse: For When Your Eyelashes Aren't Good Enough.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14901
Another way to get better living through chemicals. That's the American way!
You got to love drug companies that focus their attention on increasing eyelashes, not one, say, working on cures for real problems that are life threatening like HIV, cancer and epilepsy.
Joan
Right. Because no drug companies are working for cures for HIV, cancer, or epilepsy.
If people want eyelashes, that's fine with me. I'm not going to judge them. I mean, if cosmetic products help some to feel better, who am I to think less of the those who provide them with this comfort?
Except this isn't a cosmetic product. It's a fucking prescription drug, ostensibly for an actual condition, only they're marketing it like it's just a slightly-more-expensive mascara. This is problematic, no matter what other wonderful causes drug companies are working on a cure for.
Exactly. Like I said in my post, there are real conditions that cause people to not have their eyelashes, and this product might help them (I only say "might" because I'm not a doctor and can't say for certain which prescriptions would help). But that's not what this product is for. The advertisements are basically telling women that if your eyelashes don't hold up to certain beauty standards, you have a medical condition that needs treatment. This product goes further than most prescription cosmetic drugs (e.g., Botox) or cosmetic surgeries in that it actually diagnoses (or misdiagnoses) an imperfect body part.
And what exactly is your point? At the end of the day, a licensed physician decides whether or not it's appropriate to prescribe it or not. Are you a licensed physician?
And are we seriously going to get bent out of shape about this advertisement, when right above it is a cosmetic teeth whitening "solution" being advertised right here on feministing? Please. It's all the same to me. It's all the same.
Damn right we are. Just because it's all the same to you, doesn't mean it's all the same to the rest of us.
And I'm not seeing whatever ad you are - hooray for Firefox with AdBlock - but you're talking about it like it's a cosmetic product. Which, fine, those come with their own set of patriarchal baggage, but that's not what we're talking about here. We are talking here about a medication, prescribed for an actual disorder, and yet it's being marketed like it's just another cosmetic product. There is a difference. Blurring the line is problematic.
To be fair, the reason this is a prescription drug rather than an OTC cosmetic is that it's a diluted formulation of medication used to treat glaucoma. No one developed super-eyelash-growth-serum on purpose; it was a weird side effect people discovered while taking Lumigan for glaucoma.
I agree that the marketing that treats not-long-enough-by-impossible-beauty-standards eyelashes as pathology is royally fucked, but I'm kind of glad they created a diluted version: it sure beats people fucking up their intraocular pressure by accident by getting glaucoma meds on the internet.
You aren't at all bothered that a pharmaceutical company is misleading women without long and dark eyelashes into thinking that they have a real medical condition? Or that there's a multi-billion dollar industry out there profiting off of women's insecurities about their bodies?
And nobody is telling anyone to judge the women who use the products unfavorably. But should we judge women who don't have long thick eyelashes unfavorably? Or small breasts, or giant breasts, or flabby bellies, or big noses?
No. We shouldn't judge women for these reasons. But we shouldn't judge women for the decisions they make, which in this case, is a decision made between a woman and her physician.
Not you and not me.
And *not* "Jadelyn".
Wow, putting my name in scare quotes. Way to be a ginormous asshole.
For the record, though, you're making a strawwoman point here. We're not judging the women who choose to seek this medication. We're not judging the women who take this medication. We're not judging the doctors who prescribe this medication. What we are judging, rather, is the way in which this medication is being marketed, because it is being marketed in a way inconsistent with the stated aims of the product. And that difference is a very damaging and anti-feminist one. THAT is what we are criticizing. Not individual women's choices. And if you'd read what was being said, you'd know that.
Fair enough. I guess it just all looks the same to me, but I see your point.
In my mind, though, if marketing it to people who will use it for personal, cosmetic use will drive down the prices for those who need it for unambiguous medical reasons, I really don't see a problem with it. That's the beauty of capitalism. But I see your point.
From casual observance it seems to me that courtship dating tends to put all screen names, whether they're obvious pseudonyms or not, in quotations. I don't think they were singling you out.
Of course, there could be a pattern to their behaviour that I haven't picked up on through casual observations.
Right. I don't mean anything negative by it. I just do that as a rule. I always have. If I knew it was insulting, I might not have done it. This is the first time someone's been insulted that I know of.
I guess I'll start treating it as a name. I just find it problematic with some names because if I used certain names without quotations, such as the name Seasons that someone used below, it just sounds like a noun, and not a Proper Noun. I apologize if it seemed assholish. I certainly don't view these things as square quotes. Just a way to be clear in my posts.
Also, I do it with what are probably Proper Nouns, because if I used that name, the casual observer might think I was referring to someone else, making the reference unclear. I guess I'll just stop doing it. I apologize.
Oh. I did find it obnoxious at first, I'll admit. But it seems actually like a very reasonable way to go about things once one gets used to it.
I appreciate the clarification on your name-quotes style. I hadn't seen you do that before - perhaps because we haven't turned up on the same discussions before, or because I hadn't seen you refer directly to anyone before - and it came off as pretty rude, to me. I'm glad it wasn't intended as such.
I follow a protocol in online spaces of treating peoples' chosen names as, well...names. Even if they are "weird" or unusual. Complete with the capitalization they've chosen. To me it's a respect thing, like using a nickname or name other than a person's given name in real life, if that person has asked you to do so.
Back on topic: I can see how one might like the prices to be driven down by demand for the product - although I don't think drug prices work that way... - but to me, it's a question of ends and means. I don't think insinuating that women with eyelashes that don't sufficiently meet the Beauty Standard(tm) of our culture have an actual disease when they don't, is worth driving down the price of the drug. It's pathologizing deviance from the Standard(tm). Women are already under such intense pressure to conform and be Beautyful, and now drug companies are trying to tell them if they're not Perfectly Beautiful it's a disease? Even if that does drive down the drug price, it's still a fucked-up way to go about doing it.
Fair enough. FWIW, I've reconsidered this practice and concluded that I'll switch to your protocol. I didn't mean it as an insult.
P.S. I think it's wonderful that they're donating that much money to such a charity. Perhaps after this, they'll donate even more. We'll see.
Can I wish for the end of dirty money?
Broadening the demand base beyond those who need it for what you consider a legitimate medical reason will bring the price down for those you think deserve the "medication".
Are you fucking kidding me? Point out the part of anything I've said here about certain people deserving this more than others. Secondly, your theory makes no sense. Cosmetic surgeries are still very expensive, whether someone gets it to fix a perceived inferior body part or to bring their body back to where it was before a horrible accident or something.
God, this is awful. 'Side effects include itchy eyes and eye redness' - but hey, we all want long lashes, right!? We need drugs to sort it out because we don't want to be deformed!
Wonder if it would work to grow hair on other places?
Ooh, I foresee a new trend in body art. Hair tattoos! Paint Latisse in the pattern you want somewhere, repeat daily, and the hair will grow in the pattern you painted! When you're tired of it, just quit using Latisse (cause the commercial says discontinuing use will discontinue the benefits) and you go back to normal.
Eyelashes are weird. I have trichotillamania and haven't had a full set of lashes for over a decade, but it rarely bothers me. The only time it really causes me any grief is when I go to the optometrist and they push eyelash growth meds on me.
The one that really failed to be sold on me: "Take this pill. You might grow some weird, lopsided, crooked eyelashes, but you'll look more normal. Oh, and your eyes will change colors permanently. You'd like brown eyes better than grey, right?"
The thing that threw me off is "browning iris pigmentation which is likely permanent". I may sound hypocritical, considering I take prescription pills to control my acne, but this seems a tiny bit much... if you want bigger eye lashes, buy some mascara.
Yeah that freaked me out. It can permanently change your eye color. A topical medication that changes your eyes for good. You cannot tell me that is a "minor" side effect. That is insanely scary.
To be honest I know it's shallow but my green eyes are something I love about myself. They are a shade few people have and I wouldn't give them up for more lashes ever.
You're right, this is ridiculous. The sad thing is that probably this commercial *has* convinced a whole bunch of women that they have some bogus medical condition. Just another thing to waste money on...
All I want to say has been said, total waste of money.
While the medicalization of the body and its parts can be an alarming process, I'm not sure what the outrage over this product is. There are many, many drugs marketed toward "invented" conditions (medicalized normal variations) that rely on people's insecurities or vanities. This isn't the first and it won't be the last drug.
Who are we to judge other women about how they should or shouldn't feel about their bodies, or how they should or shouldn't address those feelings? It's a product that one must obtain a prescription for. If using Latisse is the difference between insecurity and self-confidence for someone, why is that so wrong?
Yes, pharmaceutical companies should be approached with suspicion. Yes, the medical profession has a long and troubling history of treating the female body and women. But is the judgmental tone of this post really all that necessary? Why ridicule women who think that having inadequate eyelashes (whatever that means) is a "real" condition? Who decides what is a "real" condition deserving of medications and consideration?
Read the comments (and the post) before putting in your two cents. I already went over this. NOBODY IS JUDGING THE WOMEN WHO USE THE PRODUCT OR FEEL INSECURE ABOUT THEIR BODIES. We are talking about a pharmaceutical company applying a real medical condition to women without the standard beautiful eyelashes. And just because it has been done before doesn't mean it's okay to do it again. Do you apply that idiotic logic to everything?
Simply because I disagree and read your repeated use of the word "real" to judge conditions as judging language does not make me an idiot or require the use of bold, all capital letters. Thank you for yelling at me. I read your post and I read the comments all carefully.
You are missing the point of my comment. I'm asking who we are to say what is a "real" condition and what is not a "real" condition. The pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry exist partly in order to medicalize benign issues. Pointing that out does not mean that I think it's okay because it is so commonplace.
Hypotrichosis, which is a medical condition that causes people to not grow hair, is not the same as having eyelashes that don't conform to societal beauty standards. If someone has eyelashes that don't conform to societal beauty standards, they still have eyelashes, and eyelashes are made of hair, so they don't have hypotrichosis. Not having eyelashes that don't conform to societal beauty standards is not a medical condition. One does not have to be a doctor to come to that conclusion. Having eyelashes that aren't "long and thick enough" is as much a medical condition as having breasts that aren't "big enough."
What also disturbs me (unless they are out there and I just have not found them referenced) is that there don't seem to be any long term studies about possible side effects of using this product over a lifetime as a cosmetic product. We already know it can change your eye color for life and I read somewhere that it can make red areas on your inner eyelids. What other possible side effects might there be with such a small payoff of getting slightly "prettier" eyelashes? This is just another example of the many ways that companies try to make "beauty" and "health" mean the same thing and blur the line between the two.
Oh, and I just wanted to add that I have seen this product touted in beauty magazines as something along the same line as eye lash extensions and false eyelashes. Not just for people who think they have small eyelashes, but for anyone with "normal" sized eyelashes who wants that "extra something".