This is absolutely bleeping offensive, to repackage a story like this (and I seriously question whether it's true anyway) in the service of personally profiting from consumerism and patriarchal oppression. She's taking a small observation from someone who though well meaning was probably quite sexist wasn't thinking how this detail would give a particular impression to readers.
I had a relative who was part of the first army group into a German concentration camp at the end of the war. He was absolutely traumatised and couldn't have anything about concentration camps in his house for the rest of his life. The only story he told his wife was that there was no grass or trees in the camp or outside the fence for a space as long as an arm, because these poor desperate people had eaten it all to try and stay alive. He also said the worst thing was that they took supplies, but even though the food was there, people couldn't eat it as their digestion was so damaged, and he felt helpless they continued to die even though liberated, and with food available. Now we know it as a refeeding process. All this to say, these women weren't just a bit thin and missing lippy, the situation was far more serious.
By Snippi's logic, parcel drops of red lipstick should be made into Gaza, because in dehumanising conditions, who doesn't need red lipstick? Her statement is so biased, albeist, sexist (why don't men wear lipstick Snippi? Why are its miraculous self care properties not avaliable to them?) and culturally specific, and yet she can't see that at all. She appears to genuinely think this is some sort of transcendent female universal story, which proves some baseline truth about us all.
