Forget the controversy about this perfume. (Where there is a columnist in need of something to get agitated about, there will be controversy. One can see the beauty in blemish-free, smooth, pale skin without hating darker skin or darker people. If you can't accept that, you have more problems than a perfume can address.)
The real story here is the scent - heavy on the lotus, with some rose notes, and the most scant amount of musk. As I have said before, I am a sucker for most fragrances which manage to work some musk into a floral, as the heady mix of feminine and masculine appeals to me so much.
This also seems to make Alabaster a universal favorite: Everyone I have let sample the perfume that Banana Republic's PR team sent to me has declared it a winner. (I arrange my many fragrances in my powder room, so that visitors can try them - and so that the beautiful bottles don't get hidden away.)
Speaking of bottles, the teardrop-shaped one that Alabaster comes in is a real work of art. It has a flat bottom, and lies quite low, but would fit in the palm of your hand. Between the substance and the style, Alabaster is one of the very few scents I would feel confident giving as a gift to almost any woman.
While "One can see the beauty in blemish-free, smooth, pale skin without hating darker skin or darker people," I've never heard any "one" in the media actually prove otherwise, and everyone has a right to protest whatever they want to, without hearing the usual "get over it" rant. If you have *any* proof that darker skin has ever been given this type of adoration, feel free to back up your words.
Posted by: zenzele Bell | August 20, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Zenzele, I don't know what civil rights education you've had, but I assure you: You do not have the "right" not to be told to get over it.
And let's be clear about the "it" I'm saying people need to get over: I'm not talking about slavery or racism or idiocy. I'm saying that anyone who has a problem with beautiful skin of ANY color being admired has serious issues, and needs to examine them...and get over them.
Posted by: Jackie Danicki | August 21, 2007 at 07:30 AM
I stick to my previous statement and, for the record, I got my "civil rights education" by living through it, not reading about it.
Posted by: zenzele Bell | August 21, 2007 at 08:58 PM
I'm with zenzele--this post rubbed me the wrong way. Which is a shame, because I usually love this blog--and Jackie's posts, in particular.
Even if you weren't explicitly saying "get over it," it just came across really badly. People aren't frothed up about the existence of "smooth pale skin," but the fact that it is continually praised in our culture, whereas dark skin is not. When I was a little girl, I used to always wonder why there was a "White Shoulder" but no perfume for black or brown shoulders. I guess that means I have "problems."
Posted by: Sarah | August 22, 2007 at 02:03 PM
Sorry it took me a couple of days to approve these comments - I was on another trip from London to the US and have only just got on my laptop.
I don't mind disagreement, but I do ask for reason to be employed. That means no "You can't comment on civil rights if you're white" posturing or substituting emotion for rationality.
1) No one has a "civil right" not to face disagreement. No one.
2) I don't live in a world where noting the beauty of anything - and especially any living thing - is verboten. You may wish to live in a world where it is, and feel free to do so. But do not insist that others adopt such a negative view of life.
My suggestion is not, nor has it ever been, that we live in a world of glorious equality. My position is that, living in the world that we do, I see no way in which any of us is served by heaping shame upon other people for who they are and the skin they were born with. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: Jackie Danicki | August 23, 2007 at 03:45 PM
No one is saying that noting the beauty of white skin is inherently racist or that there should be "shame" in celebrating it. If there were so much shame in swooning over beautiful white women, every fashion mag currently in print would be shut down.
The controversy stems from the fact that there are no perfumes lauding dark skin and that, historically, the cosmetics industry has forced women of color to make do with chalky foundations and coral lipsticks and perfumes with names like "Alabaster." Saying there should be greater equity does not mean there shouldn't be an "Alabaster," only that there SHOULD be a "Mahogany" to go along with it.
I said above that I was surprised by the tone of this post, and I'm even more surprised by your response to the comments. If this is the sort of thing I have to wade through to get to the product reviews I love so much, I'd rather not bother.
I respect your opinion, but not the way in which you've chosen to express it.
Posted by: Sarah | August 23, 2007 at 05:03 PM
Sarah, I'd love it if there were a "Mahogany"! My point is that a lack of one doesn't cause me to be outraged at the existence of Alabaster. Maybe that's because I have African-American siblings and have received more than my fair share of taunting and teasing about my skin (which isn't even close to being described as alabaster). Like I said, I don't want to live in a world where outrage is something I'd feel at an expression of appreciation for beauty.
As for whether or not you respect how I express myself, there's literally nothing I can do about that.
Posted by: Jackie Danicki | August 23, 2007 at 05:37 PM
Did I mention that I'm happy to let people rip my arguments to shreds, but not me personally?
This might be a good time to mention that.
Play the ball not the woman. Bullies aren't welcome here.
Posted by: Jackie Danicki | August 23, 2007 at 10:36 PM
For cryin' out loud - it's a perfume name. What should we do - change the language to get rid of words that, in any minute way, can be construed as racist ? Let's take "white, black, ivory, ebony, yellow, nip, chink, etc." out of the dictionary. Let's remove "faggot, broad, gay, dame, etc." as well. Each of these words has a legitimate usable meaning but are often used WRONGLY in a racist/sexist/biased way. It's not the words - it's the way people use or hear them. Stop being so ridiculously sensitive and reading bigotry into every nuance of language.
Posted by: Alison | August 24, 2007 at 09:05 AM
Suddenly, there are a slew of people on my blog (at the "controversy" link in Jackie's entry), accusing me of being racist. I came over to get a link to your entry (with the shot of the bottle) and noticed with some amusement that the case is about the same color of the skin of a good friend of mine who's black. Whoops!
The controversy stems from the fact that there are no perfumes lauding dark skin and that, historically, the cosmetics industry has forced women of color to make do with chalky foundations and coral lipsticks and perfumes with names like "Alabaster." Saying there should be greater equity does not mean there shouldn't be an "Alabaster," only that there SHOULD be a "Mahogany" to go along with it.
Oh, how retarded. I'm a redhead and I have to wear Chanel foundation (I'd prefer to wear something priced a little more like Maybelline) because my skin is so fair most companies don't make foundation that's light enough for me.
There's a solution that entrepreneurs throughout the ages have opted for when something that doesn't exist should: They invent it and make piles of money off it.
Complaining probably feels better to you, huh?
Posted by: Amy Alkon | August 29, 2007 at 03:50 PM
Did I mention that I'm happy to let people rip my arguments to shreds, but not me personally?
This might be a good time to mention that.
Play the ball not the woman. Bullies aren't welcome here.
Followed Amy here, and I have to mention how much I like that comment. Way too many bullies around, who needs more?
Posted by: anon | August 29, 2007 at 05:21 PM
Who is being a bully? Certainly not me. I prefaced everything I said with compliments about this blog and Jackie's writing. I just didn't like this post. Sue me. Amy, thanks for calling me "retarded." How sensitive and PC of you! I don't use the word "retarded," but I find this to be absolutely hilarious:
"I'm a redhead and I have to wear Chanel foundation (I'd prefer to wear something priced a little more like Maybelline) because my skin is so fair most companies don't make foundation that's light enough for me."
Thanks for the lulz. I'm going to send this to all of my friends so that they can have a laugh at the poor, poor fair-skinned woman who simply *must* buy Chanel foundation! Oh the horror!
Posted by: Sarah | August 31, 2007 at 06:31 PM
Sarah, I made the comment about bullies, and it was not directed at you at all.
Posted by: Jackie Danicki | August 31, 2007 at 06:33 PM