Beauty Standards for Men and Women: Why His Weathered Skin Is Rugged and Hers Is a Problem

A man can have a dad bod, crinkly eyes, weathered skin, a forehead with the deeply fascinating texture of actual human life and a beard that is described as “well cropped”.

A woman can have one visible line beneath her eye and suddenly everyone is acting like she has personally betrayed the concept of youth.

Welcome to the strange little beauty pageant nobody entered, where men are allowed to age, soften, wrinkle, grow beards and look vaguely windswept, while women are expected to remain smooth, hairless, poreless and suspiciously well-rested until the end of time.

Apparently, his lines are character.

Hers are a crisis meeting.

The same feature, apparently a completely different verdict

When a man has a few wrinkles around his eyes, they are often called “smile lines”. Charming. Warm. Proof that he has laughed, lived and possibly once owned a barbecue.

When a woman has the same lines, they become “crow’s feet”, as though her face has been invaded by a small and judgmental bird.

A man’s weathered skin can be described as rugged. Outdoorsy. Distinguished. A woman’s skin can be just as healthy and lived-in, but suddenly she is being encouraged to “fix” it with an arsenal of products, procedures and promises that sound suspiciously like witchcraft with better packaging.

Men are allowed to look like they have experienced the weather.

Women are expected to look like they have been stored in a temperature-controlled cupboard.

Dad bods are adorable. Women’s bodies are apparently a public consultation.

The dad bod has been celebrated as approachable, comforting and real. It says, “I enjoy food and may be good at assembling flat-pack furniture.”

Fair enough. Bodies are bodies, and nobody should be required to look like they have been sculpted by a gym influencer with a tragic relationship to carbohydrates.

But women are still routinely told to be smaller, tighter, smoother, younger, hairless and somehow naturally perfect. We are expected to look effortless after spending a small fortune and several hours achieving the “I woke up like this” look.

The expectation is not simply to be healthy. It is to appear untouched by time, gravity, hormones, childbirth, stress, work, laughter, sun, genetics or the general inconvenience of being alive.

The female body is treated like a renovation project with no practical completion date.

Men can age. Women are told to negotiate with time.

A few grey hairs on a man can be described as distinguished.

A few grey hairs on a woman can trigger an entire industry.

The message is not subtle. Men are often allowed to become older, wiser and more interesting. Women are expected to become less visible.

This is one of the most irritating double standards in beauty. Men are frequently praised for looking their age, or even older. Women are pressured to look younger than they are, while also somehow appearing experienced, confident and mature.

So, to clarify, women are expected to look 28, behave 42, have the energy of 19 and possess the skin of a very expensive peach.

No pressure.

This is not really about skincare. It is about entitlement.

The double standard comes from a culture that has long treated women’s appearance as something available for public commentary, judgement and consumption.

Women are expected to stay young because youth is treated as desirable, manageable and easier to control. They are expected to be attractive while asking for very little, ageing quietly, performing unpaid emotional labour and never making anyone uncomfortable with their needs.

The patriarchy would like women to be endlessly desirable, but not intimidating. Confident, but not difficult. Independent, but still willing to do everything. Sexy, but not sexual. Naturally beautiful, but also willing to spend hours manufacturing that natural beauty.

It is a remarkably demanding customer.

And then there is the expectation that women should accept gender roles and sexist behaviour while remaining grateful for male attention. Apparently, a man can be rude, entitled and emotionally unavailable, but still expect access to a young woman who has flawless skin and no visible evidence of having ever been tired.

The audacity is moisturiser-resistant.

This standard did not appear by accident

The patriarchy did not invent beauty standards in a single boardroom meeting, although it has certainly behaved like it owns the minutes.

In many patriarchal societies, girls and young women were married to older men and treated as property, or even as chattel, within systems built around ownership, inheritance, labour, reproduction and family alliances. Women’s security often depended on marriage, while men held more of the legal, financial and social power.

In that kind of system, youth became valuable because women were expected to be attractive, obedient, fertile and easier to control. Older women were pushed aside, not because they had suddenly become less human, but because the system had decided their value was connected to how useful and desirable they were to men.

That history has not vanished just because we now have moisturiser in a pump bottle.

It still echoes in the way young women are treated as the beauty ideal, while older women are told to hide their age. It appears in the idea that women should remain sexually appealing to men, even when those men feel no obligation to be respectful, kind, emotionally mature or remotely familiar with the concept of pulling their own weight.

Women are expected to stay young, smooth and accommodating, while men are allowed to become older, rougher, softer, hairier and more opinionated about lawn care.

This is not an argument against attraction, relationships or personal preference. It is an argument against a social system that has repeatedly treated women’s bodies as something men are entitled to access, assess and manage.

Women do not owe anyone youth. They do not owe anyone beauty. They certainly do not owe a man flawless under-eyes while he contributes nothing but audacity and a poorly cropped beard.

Feminist skincare can care for your skin without enforcing the patriarchy

This is where feminist skincare comes in. It is not about pretending skincare cannot improve your skin. It is about caring for healthy skin without accepting the patriarchal idea that women must remain young, smooth, flawless and permanently available for approval. Your skin can look healthier, brighter and more cared for without your face becoming a full-time obedience project.

Smooth skin is not a moral achievement

There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying skincare, makeup, grooming or any treatment that makes you feel good. The problem begins when personal choices become compulsory maintenance.

Healthy skin is the goal, and healthy skin can look smoother, brighter, more hydrated and more even. Good skincare can make a genuine visible difference. It can help reduce the appearance of lines and support skin that looks and feels healthier.

But that does not mean women should be expected to have perfectly smooth, permanently youthful faces. A woman can care for her skin and still have a face that shows she has laughed, lived, squinted at the sun and occasionally had to listen to someone explain something she already knew.

The problem is not wanting healthier-looking skin. The problem is the double standard that treats every sign of age on women as a failure, while describing the same signs on men as rugged, distinguished or charming.

Women are sold the idea that every line must be corrected immediately. Forehead lines must disappear. Under-eye lines must be erased. Skin must look permanently fresh and suspiciously well-rested.

Meanwhile, men can moisturise once in 2009 and be congratulated for their “natural glow”.

Women do not owe anyone youth

A woman’s face is not a countdown clock.

Her body is not public property.

Her skin does not become less worthy because it develops lines. Her value does not decrease because she ages. She does not need to apologise for having a forehead that moves, eyes that crinkle when she laughs or skin that has been exposed to the radical concept of sunlight.

Women are not required to remain visually frozen at the age when other people first decided they were attractive.

And if a man’s weathered face is considered rugged, perhaps a woman’s weathered face can simply be considered a face. Revolutionary, I know.

Let’s retire the beauty double standard

The answer is not to start insulting men for having dad bods, beards, wrinkles or less-than-perfect skin. That would simply create more ridiculous appearance rules, and the world already has enough of those.

The answer is to stop treating men’s natural ageing as attractive character while treating women’s natural ageing as personal failure.

Let men be soft. Let women age. Let everyone be cared for.

Let people grow older without being shoved into a beauty courtroom to defend their right to exist visibly.

Skincare should support healthy skin and help it look and feel its best. It can reduce the appearance of lines and improve the way skin looks without turning ageing into a character flaw. Looking after your skin is a choice. Being pressured to look untouched by time is the beauty standard we can leave in the bin.

No beauty standards. No self-proclaimed influencers. No gender roles. Just healthy skin. And healthy skin is your best skin.

Browse the Tree Fairy range