“Makeup is malleable and fluid: the greatest joy I have every day is the opportunity to create, play and invent with something I have always loved.”
–Pat McGrath
When Pat McGrathwho calls Vogue the most influential makeup artist in the world says this, it brings to light the role of makeup as a means of expression, a means of exploration, a means of activism and a means of showing solidarity. Form was often used to promote patriarchal ideals of beauty rather than one’s own interpretations. But amid the rapidly spreading violence and hatred of women and gender non-conforming people, we are witnessing the rise of a unique form of protest, response, even art, through makeup –the man-repelling makeup trend.
Source: Rowi Singh on Instagram
With a bold, theatrical approach, this trend draws heavily on the art and practice of Take off makeup. Historically, both movements have been political and economic in nature, questioning at every step who gains visibility and security through these forms and who benefits from their popularity. But how did they actually empower participants? Did they really continue their political purpose? Or have they deviated from their true intention?
History of Non-Binary Composition in Indian Context
Historical examples of makeup in the Indian subcontinent are numerous. The Hijra The community forms one of the most continuously documented gender-variant communities in the region, dating back to as early as the 16th century. For them, makeup means ritual authority and consolidation of identity. Their aesthetics were often intended to attract attention and legitimacy; Survival and power.
Kathakali is another useful example. A classical dance-drama tradition that originated in 17th century Kerala. Here, codified facial expressions were often complemented by flashy and eye-catching makeup. Each “look” would express different emotions. Privilege was important, but makeup wasn’t gendered; As long as you were an artist, you used makeup. Bhavaia folk theater from Gujarat and Rajasthan, also commonly used face paint to depict satire, humor and social criticism. Makeup was deliberately used to distort and exaggerate facial features in order to parody power, caste and gender roles. The aim was provocation.
Makeup was deliberately used to distort and exaggerate facial features in order to parody power, caste and gender roles. The aim was provocation.
These examples illustrate well how the goal of form It wasn’t primarily about appeasing the male gaze. The change in this mentality was observed after the colonial period (18th century). With the introduction of Victorian moral binaries, makeup became increasingly gendered and limited to themes such as respectability and marriageability. Queer and gender non-conforming uses of makeup therefore largely survived in marginalized performance spaces rather than mainstream beauty culture.
Male-repellent make-up as a digital practice
In the 21st century, our primary media is social media – Instagram, TikTok and YouTube are at the forefront of popular news. The male-rejecting makeup trend seen everywhere online aims to break away from this long-standing patriarchal understanding of makeup and is characterized by its rejection of symmetry, softness and “natural” beauty norms.
Source: Rowi Singh on Instagram
Social media is also becoming the perfect platform for these art forms – they enable self-curated visibility on reels, stories and posts without institutional gatekeeping. In today’s context of increasing hatred against all those who are marginalized, this type of content is often listed under the heading “Made for the girls/For the queers/Not for men.” This signal of unavailability allows these contributions to serve as protective aesthetics. By “defending” the male gaze through its conventionally unattractive nature, the consumer and user of such content enters a safe space where judgment is suspended and a measure of comfort arises. But is it really safe for everyone?
The algorithm of these platforms rewards novelty and shock, driving emerging content even further. However, the viralization of content runs the risk of trivializing and depoliticizing it. Once the novelty wears off, the audience risks forgetting the intent. Male-rejecting trends borrow heavily from drag traditions—exaggeration, theatricality, and the face as costume rather than reinforcement. Drag has also historically mocked gender norms and exposed femininity as constructed and performative.
Drag’s political intent is aestheticized without acknowledgment and often cisgender heterosexual creators adopt elements without acknowledging lineage.
However, in many mainstream anti-male trends, drag’s political intent is aestheticized without acknowledgment, and often straight, cisgender creators adopt elements without acknowledging lineage. This absence is cause for concern cultural extraction– of whether Pull has evolved from an art of survival to purely consumable online content.
Beauty as capital
Beauty often works as capital– one that can translate into social acceptance and economic opportunities. However, when it comes to people-repellent make-up, this turnover is uneven. The common phenomenon of brands separating politics from aesthetics hurts creators in the long run. Furthermore, while commercialization can ensure visibility, it alone rarely guarantees pay, protection, or long-term support. Platforms Shadow ban visibly queer content only makes interaction more difficult; the promise of security and recognition remains conditional. The “safe space” is thus shaped by market logic rather than intention.
The final verdict – empowering or limiting?
Male-repelling makeup is neither a complete rejection of beauty culture nor a mere extension of it. However, it offers something far more real: a rejection of male recognition and a shared visual language through which queer and gender non-conforming individuals recognize each other. It creates moments of relief, solidarity and control in an otherwise hostile dimension. Aestheticizing resistance risks its absorption.
Source: Reddit
So for us, male-repelling makeup presents itself as a strategy – a way for us to question who becomes visible, who is safe and who ultimately benefits from defiance.
