Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

From the dawn of time, how come make-up wasn't a unisex thing? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    I know I already quoted you but please, PLEASE for the sake of all that is good, stop talking about science. Literally everything your saying is wrong.
    No I'm not wrong. Evolution is not the only theory, there are holes in it, and there are counter arguments for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You have absolutely NO evidence to assume that make up was not a part of historic cultures.
    It's even been very prevalent in the middle east in the form of eye make up for men because it's what the prophet Muhammad wore, so for a muslim to do the same, it is a 'reward' for them.

    It just hasn't been a unisex thing for the last 60 years in the UK.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    The earliest known human ancestors wore make-up, or face-paint, both male and female.
    Are you suggesting that Pan Prior got dolled up in the rainforests of Africa?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    I would disagree, especially as evolution is a theory. (I'm not a creationist or anything btw, I just look at everything in an unbiased manner) It's not only myself that thinks this, you only have to look at TSR and see all the threads made by insecure males moaning about how girls are too shallow.

    I do understajnd the point, but as I said, evolution is still a theory and there are still many things we don't understand. I personally think it's impossible to generalise a whole gender.
    You know what else is a theory? Gravity. Oxygen. Respiration. Photosynthesis. Light.

    Evolution is the current best explanation for the process of change and emergence of species over time.

    Abiogenesis, or the origins of life, are unrelated to evolution. Evolution presupposes the existence of life. It is not a universal theory of life, it only describes and explains the process of change and emergence of species.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    No I'm not wrong. Evolution is not the only theory, there are holes in it, and there are counter arguments for it.
    Name them.

    You're just lucky there aren't any biologists reading this. They'd skin you alive.

    Also, out of interest. What is your scientific background?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    You know what else is a theory? Gravity. Oxygen. Respiration. Photosynthesis. Light.
    And? Have I disputed that anywhere? :rolleyes:

    If you really want my views on this whole issue, it will be a very lengthy post which will be completely irrelevant to the original topic asked by the OP. However breifly, I don't believe that you can prove anything (within reason). How do you know my reality is the same as yours? How do we know that what we see is how it really is? We could all be living and interacting with eachother, and yet all living in different 'realities', and we'd never know because we'd use the same words to describe it as that's what we're taught. But meaning could differ from person to person dependant on reality. See what I mean? Completely off topic though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    go look at tribes in africa / south america etc

    loads of the men wear something resembling make up. but its normally only for festivals etc rather than an everyday thing

    My point is that why is it not more common in mass society? Tribal communities tend to have their own way of going about things and it is genuinely quite fascinating how their norms differ but my question is why would make-up in most other societies be a thing for only women? Like how and why did it become that way. Like I said, I don't know how make-up came about but it must have been known as something that enhances appearance or enhances features. I'm guessing thats the way it was marketed or brought to most people's attention. Now why would media/people/whatever seem to selectively target females only when it could potentially do the same thing for men too (give men even skin tone, bring out certain features).

    Like if some new amazing soap comes out, you'd think it'd be offered to everyone as opposed to just one gender? (this might be a terrible example/comparison to make.. I haven't decided yet. It's just an example of the top of my head). When make up first came out, I doubt it already had connotations of being feminine or for women only. It was made to be that way which is why over loads and loads of years, we have become accustomed to relate it to women only. But it could have been for both. I'm just wondering what made it not be that way.. if that makes any sense.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    The earliest known human ancestors wore make-up, or face-paint, both male and female.
    And did so throughout history. Makeup was worn by man (and in some cases by more men than women)

    Its only the last two centuries or so that men have stopped wearing makeup

    why - that i dont know.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    Name them.

    You're just lucky there aren't any biologists reading this. They'd skin you alive.

    Also, out of interest. What is your scientific background?
    For one, a lack of transitional fossils? The complexity of certain species? (Think it's called intelligent design).

    I'm not a scientist, but I make it my business to learn about interesting topics. I've read around the topic of evolution, and I have a very religious parent so I tend to hear the other side from him.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    I did read it, hence I disagreed with it. Why are you so millitant?

    Wikipedia? Impressive.
    I believe several religious leaders could argue that very well. As I'm not an expert on religion (I know a little about Christianity and Islam, but no where near as much as some) I'm not the best person to argue the case. I'm just stating that there is a counter argument to it.

    There are holes in the theory of evolution.

    Again I haven't said anything contrary to that. All I have said is there is evidence against it and a counter argument, so you cannot say it is 'factually accurate'.



    It's very ignorant to assume that humans really 'know' how we were created.
    I find it funny that you're questioning the validity of wikipedia as a source when you can't even get GCSE science right.

    The reason I'm being so militant is that you are a failure of the education system. Something has gone very wrong if you think it's okay to say 'evolution is just a theory'. Either you've been brainwashed by postmodernism into thinking that nothing is really true, or you're being deliberately ignorant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by agolati)
    You have absolutely NO evidence to assume that make up was not a part of historic cultures.
    It's even been very prevalent in the middle east in the form of eye make up for men because it's what the prophet Muhammad wore, so for a muslim to do the same, it is a 'reward' for them.

    It just hasn't been a unisex thing for the last 60 years in the UK.
    I suppose that's true. I don't know about all those people in the past because I would assume egyptian men and women wore make-up of some sort ( I could be wrong but that's how it is in my head). But if it was a norm in the past, why has it been discontinued? Surely it would do businesses good if both men and women were consumers of make up.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    Name them.

    You're just lucky there aren't any biologists reading this. They'd skin you alive.

    Also, out of interest. What is your scientific background?
    There is a biologist reading this. He is silently fuming in his office at the stupidity of .Ali.'s posts and how ridiculous it is that she thinks she's qualified to make comments on an area she clearly knows nothing about. Then he eats a chocolate biscuit and goes back to his lab to carry on curing neurological diseases with the power of scientific theories.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    For one, a lack of transitional fossils? The complexity of certain species? (Think it's called intelligent design).

    I'm not a scientist, but I make it my business to learn about interesting topics. I've read around the topic of evolution, and I have a very religious parent so I tend to hear the other side from him.
    Well there's your problem.

    Your very religious parent is very wrong. I'm sorry to tell you this.

    There is no 'other side'. There are scientists who talk about science, and people who know nothing about science (creationists) who deny the validity of science itself, and try to replace it with scripture. To call it a debate is wrong, it's deliberate ignorance of one side versus reason on the other.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    There is a biologist reading this. He is silently fuming in his office at the stupidity of .Ali.'s posts and how ridiculous it is that she thinks she's qualified to make comments on an area she clearly knows nothing about. Then he eats a chocolate biscuit and goes back to his lab to carry on curing neurological diseases with the power of scientific theories.
    I'm sure this'd make a good XKCD strip.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    How is it being misued? I was just pointing out that it's not actually fact. My own views on it are that we genuinely don't know (agnosticism ftw), so I look at both sides of the argument. It's not established fact and therefore you can suggest things from it but you cannot say it is definate. There are holes in the theory of evolution too.
    It's called the theory of gravity too.

    Theory just refers to thoughts on/ viewing of/ ideas about rather than actions on a subject.

    "Theory" doesn't refer to something being a guess. All theories are not equal in the light of evidence. Creationism is also a theory. It's just that evolution is a better theory. By better: it makes more sense, is supported by more evidence, and can make reliable predictions.

    Nothing in science is "fact". If you could produce a scientific "fact" then go ahead, and it will be pointed to you that in fact that is also a theory.

    Also, looking on both sides of the "argument" and "being fair" does not equal sitting in exactly the middle position and being purposefully unsure. Evolutionists have looked at both sides of the argument, it's just obvious that one side is better.

    Say I had a basic "theory" that "being dropped out of a window is injurious to orphans". We have the evidence: if I take injured orphans, have some of them fallen from windows? Yes. If I take people who have fallen out of windows, are they injured, yes?
    My theory makes a prediction: When I drop this orphan out of the window, they will be injured. And then they are..

    Creationists are like the people who say "there is no connection!!! The injuries were caused by God at the same moment to test our faith". Or whatever bull**** or purposefully ignorant argument/ blah blah.

    But almost more irritating, are those that will come along and say "well I'm impartial, therefore I conclude that we cannot know the answer! It is not clear, after all it's only a theory that orphans are injured by falling out of windows".

    You are one of them. Purposeful indecisiveness in the face of obvious truth does not equal impartiality or "looking at both sides". It would be better if you at least said, actually I can't be bothered to look up the evidence on wiki, or I disagree with the evidence, or I think all of the people who study in this field are wrong, etc and become some kind of partial creationist than try to use "agnosticism ftw" as an argument. It isn't intellectually superior!

    Grrr grr rant. Don't take personal offence, just you know, try to understand the flaws in what you just said.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    For one, a lack of transitional fossils? The complexity of certain species? (Think it's called intelligent design).

    I'm not a scientist, but I make it my business to learn about interesting topics. I've read around the topic of evolution, and I have a very religious parent so I tend to hear the other side from him.
    What transitional fossils? Every fossil is a transitional fossil. We are transitional species, we are not the dead end of evolution (I hope).

    Complexity from random change is an observed phenomena in a lot of fields from physics to chemistry.

    What some middle eastern fellow thought 2000 years ago doesn't apply to medicine so why should it apply to evolutionary biology? Or do you still think eyes emit light?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    I find it funny that you're questioning the validity of wikipedia as a source when you can't even get GCSE science right.

    The reason I'm being so militant is that you are a failure of the education system. Something has gone very wrong if you think it's okay to say 'evolution is just a theory'. Either you've been brainwashed by postmodernism into thinking that nothing is really true, or you're being deliberately ignorant.
    And I find it funny that so many people on TSR are millitant athiests with pokers up their arses who cannot accept that people have, and will always have, different opinions.

    A failure of the education system? Not really, as for one I don't want to become anything related to science, and I'm actually rather intelligent. Just because my opinion conflicts with yours doesn't mean either of them are invalid. If you've noticed, I haven't actually said evolution is wrong, simply that it hasn't been proven.

    (Original post by Callum828)
    Well there's your problem.

    Your very religious parent is very wrong. I'm sorry to tell you this.

    There is no 'other side'. There are scientists who talk about science, and people who know nothing about science (creationists) who deny the validity of science itself, and try to replace it with scripture. To call it a debate is wrong, it's deliberate ignorance of one side versus reason on the other.
    Again with the militant comments. It's so bloody annoying, I've always been taught to respect others opinions/religions/cultures, and yet you authoritarian athiests spout off saying things like "YOU'RE WRONG LULZ EVOLUTION FTW!1!!" :rolleyes:

    There is an other side, to write it off as deliberate ignorance just showcases your own. :rolleyes: Why do they even have to conflict with one and other? Couldn't religion be the reason and evolution be the how? See what I mean, there is no set answer. There is certain evidence for both sides and it's up to individuals to make their own decisions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    It's called the theory of gravity too.

    Theory just refers to thoughts on/ viewing of/ ideas about rather than actions on a subject.
    read my post above about how difficult it is to prove anything for sure.

    "Theory" doesn't refer to something being a guess. All theories are not equal in the light of evidence. Creationism is also a theory. It's just that evolution is a better theory. By better: it makes more sense, is supported by more evidence, and can make reliable predictions.
    I've already said it's not just a guess.

    Nothing in science is "fact". If you could produce a scientific "fact" then go ahead, and it will be pointed to you that in fact that is also a theory.
    True, some have less couter arguments than others.

    Also, looking on both sides of the "argument" and "being fair" does not equal sitting in exactly the middle position and being purposefully unsure. Evolutionists have looked at both sides of the argument, it's just obvious that one side is better.
    Of course not, you go with whichever side you believe the most. I believe we don't have enough information to tell. Some will disagree which is fine, but there's no need for people to push their opinions as fact.

    Say I had a basic "theory" that "being dropped out of a window is injurious to orphans". We have the evidence: if I take injured orphans, have some of them fallen from windows? Yes. If I take people who have fallen out of windows, are they injured, yes?
    My theory makes a prediction: When I drop this orphan out of the window, they will be injured. And then they are..
    Creationists are like the people who say "there is no connection!!! The injuries were caused by God at the same moment to test our faith". Or whatever bull**** or purposefully ignorant argument/ blah blah.
    That's a very unfair representation of creationists actually.

    But almost more irritating, are those that will come along and say "well I'm impartial, therefore I conclude that we cannot know the answer! It is not clear, after all it's only a theory that orphans are injured by falling out of windows".

    You are one of them. Purposeful indecisiveness in the face of obvious truth does not equal impartiality or "looking at both sides". It would be better if you at least said, actually I can't be bothered to look up the evidence on wiki, or I disagree with the evidence, or I think all of the people who study in this field are wrong, etc and become some kind of partial creationist than try to use "agnosticism ftw" as an argument. It isn't intellectually superior!
    I don't think they are necessarily wrong though, like I said, I think both sides have valid arguments. Hence why I'm unsure...


    Grrr grr rant. Don't take personal offence, just you know, try to understand the flaws in what you just said.
    I never take debates personally lol it's fine.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    I know I already quoted you but please, PLEASE for the sake of all that is good, stop talking about science. Literally everything your saying is wrong.
    Even you'll admit though whilst evolution is solid in some areas i.e we evolved from other species. It has some major weaknesses when being applied to human behaviour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    What transitional fossils? Every fossil is a transitional fossil. We are transitional species, we are not the dead end of evolution (I hope).
    The middle species are conveniently missing in a lot of cases.

    Complexity from random change is an observed phenomena in a lot of fields from physics to chemistry
    . So you believe the complexity of an eagle's eye was completely random?

    What some middle eastern fellow thought 2000 years ago doesn't apply to medicine so why should it apply to evolutionary biology? Or do you still think eyes emit light?
    Actually, you'd be suprised. In Ancient Egypt they used to use honey on wounds to help encourage healing. When science started making breakthroughs, it was scrapped for a while as it was thought of as 'just a myth'. Now in certain medical dressings, honey is used as it does actually encourage healing. A lot of 'old' medicines are helpful.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.