One of the nice things about writing reviews on a place like Goodreads is the audience. I can pontificate about a book, and about subjects like feminism, for as long as I like, which is something I can’t do with my friends in person—at least, as I discovered empirically, not if I want to have friends in person. (Call me!) But you people, you crazy people, are different, because no one is forcing you to read my reviews, so I am going to assume that if you are still reading, it’s because you are generally interested in what I have to say about The Beauty Myth, or perhaps you are some kind of search engine spider indexing this review for Google. (Hello there.)I’ve thought for a long time about what I want to say about The Beauty Myth. I am a young, white, reasonably well-off male who performs gender in a conventional way, which means in general my life is not all that bad. Part of my ongoing relationship with feminism and gender studies involves acknowledging the privilege and social capital I have in our society, and learning how I can act to mitigate the effects of that privilege. Also, I’m young. Like, I was a year old, if that, when The Beauty Myth first came out. A lot has happened in the past twenty years, and although many parts of this book still ring true, it’s important to note that I have no baseline for comparison. Anything I know about the world of the 1980s is second-hand knowledge. So I had no choice but to read The Beauty Myth as someone firmly grounded in today: this is the only world I have ever known.For someone like me, who is so young and technophilic, the absence of Internet and World Wide Web in this book is conspicuous. I could not stop thinking about that while I was reading, because it’s a technology I take for granted; I’ll even go so far as to contend that the mainstream adoption of the Web is the most fundamental social change since The Beauty Myth was written. And so how has this change affected the Beauty Myth that Wolf outlines?In some ways it hasn’t, of course. The double standard of dress, the professional beauty qualifications, is still there. Ads on television and now the Internet are still relentlessly gendered. (Pink beer, anyone?) Cosmetic surgery has only gotten more complicated and more accessible, while botox treatments and tanning parlours abound. The beauty myth is still in operation.In some ways, however, the advent of the Internet has had a huge impact, particularly when it comes to how the media influences the beauty myth. Wolf criticizes women’s magazines for running so-called “editorials” about a product next to ads for that type of product, lamenting the fact that this is often a condition of getting the advertising. (She quotes Gloria Steinem as saying that advertisers are dubious of the idea that women will look at ads for shampoo without an accompanying article about hair washing!) Yet she adds an interesting counterpoint: we can’t condemn such magazines entirely, becausethey represent something very important: women’s mass culture. A woman’s magazine is not just a magazine. The relationship between the woman reader and her magazine is so different from that between a man and his that they aren’t in the same category: A Man reading Popular Mechanics or Newsweek is browsing through just one perspective among countless others of general male-oriented culture, which is everywhere. A woman reading Glamour is holding women-oriented mass culture between her two hands.This preciousness of media that we otherwise want to criticize for supporting the beauty myth is an interesting point. However, the Web has resulted in an explosion of available spaces for women to congregate and converse. True, it’s not without its disadvantages: by and large websites and blogs continue to be a male-dominated phenomenon. But just the fact that any woman can create (often for free, which removes the need for beauty-related advertising) spaces for discussion among women is something that did not exist twenty years ago. Now there are countless blogs devoted to feminism or other issues of women’s, gender, and sexuality rights. The Web is certainly not an equal space or a level playing field in any sense of these terms, but it is, for the moment, open. That is incredibly uplifting, in my opinion.Unfortunately, there are plenty of ways the Web has exacerbated the effects of the beauty myth. In the same chapter (“Culture”), Wolf mentions that the pornography industry has the unfortunate side effect of creating unrealistic standards of beauty. Men watch pornography and get this idea of what women are “supposed” to look like nude (and what sex is “supposed” to sound and look like), which puts pressure on women to conform to these fantasies. Of course, we all know that the Internet is for porn, and so in that capacity it has only made the spread of this misinformation easier.I’m focusing on the media aspect of The Beauty Myth because this is what grabbed me, both because of my fascination with the Internet and because I’m taking an Education, Media, and Gender class right now. One week the professor asked us to come to the next class performing gender differently, to “break the gender dress code”. I wore tights with my shorts; many of my other male classmates wore articles of feminine clothing or even makeup. What about the women? Well the class concluded the exercise was more difficult for them—I don’t know what fashion was like at universities in the 1990s, but these days sweat pants and a T-shirt are quite acceptable for members of any gender, especially given the late nights one stereotypically expects of students! It was more difficult for the women to break a dress code when no such code really existed at the university; some wore jerseys or baggy clothing, and one wore her Carhartt overalls. Nowadays women can wear pants without anyone blinking, but it is still rather uncommon to see men wearing a dress.Now we enter the dangerous waters of feminist discourse. When I drop the F word in casual conversation, quite a few of my friends (who are mostly women) wince: “feminist” still connotes “man-hating woman” or, less extremely, someone who is concerned with women’s rights more so than rights in general. There is a great deal of resistance to the connotation of feminism as gender equality for all, and at the risk of making a straw man, I think this is why we get “men’s rights” advocates. I have come to the conclusion, however, that there is no proper way to consider feminism except as a movement for total gender equality. Wolf herself makes this point in The Beauty Myth: the myth needs men to continue dressing in very bland, restricted ways, because this prevents men from expressing themselves. It reinforces the false dichotomy of man/stoic and woman/empathetic. If we are to defuse and deconstruct the beauty myth, Wolf opines, then one thing we have to do is start accepting that men can dress up, wear colourful clothing, etc. Suddenly something that was a “men’s rights” issue actually turns out to be a women’s rights issue when considered from a different perspective: it’s not about one gender “winning” over any others; it has to be about equality.That’s as prescriptive as I’m going to get though. I have been reading a lot about discourse around feminism—the “meta-feminist” discussion, if you will—both because I feel that it better equips me to participate in these discussions and because, as a lover of language and philosophy, it provides insights into where feminism has been and where it is going in the twenty-first century. And I want to avoid attempting to lock my idea of feminism or anyone else’s idea of feminism into a strictly-defined, concrete role. That way lies trouble! However, I just wanted to express the reasoning that let me put to rest any latent concerns about the role of feminism vis-à-vis alternative terms to describe gender equality. Whew. Semantics can be exhausting!I could probably go on at quite a length about The Beauty Myth. As I said above, I focused mostly on what Wolf says about media. As a future teacher, I am keenly interested in the effects media will have on my students, as well as how our society in turn influences those media. So that was the perspective with which I read The Beauty Myth. There is a lot more to this book, however, then just a treatment of media. Wolf covers so many different aspects of society! This is not a niche book but a broad picture, one which she has organized into eight different chapters. I only wish the chapters themselves were better organized; their internal structure borders at times on the incoherent. The Beauty Myth is not an easy book to read, because some of the facts and stories that Wolf relates are quite visceral in their effect—but she also seems to have so much to say that she can get carried away. The result is both fascinating and frustrating at the same time.I am reluctant to attach any type of recommendation to this book, because I feel like there would be far too many qualifiers. This is probably not the best introduction to feminist polemics; it is not that accessible and quite academic. Moreover, although it still remains relevant, it cannot but help being dated by now; I think people would be more satisfied seeking out more recent books first. That being said, if you’re like me and interested in questions of standards of beauty, then this could be a rewarding experience. My schedule and my own reading habits made me plough through this book in days when it would probably be something best lingered over while one reads other material, but that’s up to you. As it is, The Beauty Myth definitely earns its memorable status, but how you judge and remember it will depend entirely on the effect it has on your personal philosophy of feminism and gender.
Whooaaaaaaa. Love, love, love this. Originally published in 1991, the numerical data is heavily outdated (expected for a 23 yr old book), but the idea of the "beauty myth" remains relevant.Naomi Wolf's Beauty Myth is a treasure trove of conspiracy theories.Although I don't agree that there were secret meetings and an organized plan by men-in-power to objectify and subordinate American women, I do agree that female marginalization did and still does occur. I don't agree that men-in-power somehow coerced assorted media (magazines, newspapers, TV, etc) to implement a massively extensive and comprehensive plot to create appearance-obsessed women, just for the sake of distracting women. I do, however, believe that product-makers and advertisers (then and now) exploit the insecurities of women in order to sell unnecessary items and make money.I do think it strange that there's no direct or explicit definition of the "beauty myth" in the book, so I'll provide one here.What is the "beauty myth?" It is the social response to the breakdown of the "feminine mystique" (the idea that women can --or should-- live fulfilling lives as wife, mother and impeccable housekeeper). [ ***see below for more on the demise of the "feminine mystique" ]The "beauty myth" is the wide-spread internalization of the belief that a woman's greatest and most significant value is her appearance. It is the erroneous notion that the thinnest and youngest (or youngest-looking) woman is the most prized woman. The "beauty myth", however, isn't truly about physical traits, but is instead about the maintenance of social, economic and political power in the hands of men. By keeping women preoccupied with their external features, they are distracted from pursuing real achievements. By keeping them on an unending pursuit of the characteristics of the "iron maiden" (the constrictive and unattainable aesthetic female "ideal"), women become a sedated and demoralized people.Naomi Wolf shows us how the beauty myth has infiltrated all aspects of life. The beauty myth as religion. The beauty myth as culture. The beauty myth as hunger. The beauty myth as violence. The beauty myth defiling the workplace and the bedroom.There is so much information in Beauty Myth; it reads like five books rather than just one.* * *ReligionWith traditional religiosity on the decline, we now worship beauty (physical beauty) instead of a "god." Beauty is godliness. In the past, purity (chastity) and piety constituted godliness. Historically, the social demands of purity and piety were used as controlling forces on women. ("Victorian female piety channeled educated leisured female energies harmlessly and usefully diverted from rebellion, and gave meaning to economically unproductive lives." ) Nowadays, "beauty standards" keep women in check.Men have a long history of feeling their bodies are essentially all right. The message from Genesis 2:21-23 is simply that "Eve is an expendable rib" whereas "God breathed life directly into Adam's nostrils inspiring his body with divinity, but Eve's body is twice removed from the makers hand, imperfect matter born of matter." In other words, "women began as an inanimate piece of meat ; malleable , unsculpted , unauthorized , raw- imperfect." "A man's right to confer judgment on any woman's beauty while remaining himself unjudged is beyond scrutiny because it is thought of as god-given. That right has become so urgently important for male culture to exercise because it is the last unexamined right remaining intact from the old list of masculine privilege: those that it was universally believed that god or nature or another absolute authority bestowed upon all men to exert over all women.* * *CultureWolf reveals that contrary to popular belief there is no such thing as an objective beauty ideal. Different cultures in different time periods admired and sought different physical features. Some cultures prefer largeness over petiteness. Some prefer giant sagging breasts versus minuscule barely-there breasts. The problem arises when one type of trait, whether it be a certain eye or hair color or certain size or shape is arbitrarily considered superior to others. Wolf argues that product-makers and advertisers and mysterious men-in-power are not merely trying to sell you products, they are selling you discontent so that they succeed not only in taking your money, but your self-confidence as well.Unlike men, Wolf asserts that women have a generational gap that persists in keeping women from having valuable mentors. Younger women do not have role models the way men do. (Women are presented with women their own age or younger as a role model-- generally, actresses and models.) It is typical to see an older male professional taking on a protégé, and showing him the ropes. With women, on the other hand, Wolf claims that older women find younger women threatening; younger women find older women obsolete. In this way, women do not profit from experienced wisdom and shared perspectives as men do, and women are instead divided and conquered. * * *HungerThe preoccupation of looks (fanaticism and fastidiousness with weight reduction and appearance of youth) is actually a natural and rational response to the insane and irrational expectations of western society. Excessive dieting, and semi-starvation (as in eating disorders), serves as a method for some women to "opt out" of being seen as a [sexual] object. The woman with the thinnest corpse wins."Dieting is the most potent political sedative in women's history."Hungry women are obedient, tractable women."Food is the primal symbol of social worth. Whom a society values, it feeds well." At the dining table, men typically are served the choicest cuts. Women get whatever else remains.* * *Sex and ViolenceWomen are kept under control by the threat of violence. When asked of women: what is your #1 fear of men? The response was overwhelmingly "I fear they [men] are going to kill us." When asked of men: what is your #1 fear of women? The response was: "I fear they [women] are going to laugh at us."Violence against women in pornography is considered "normal." The images in porn are made to make men unhappy in their real relationships with real women. Unsatisfied (unsatisfying) relationships equal increased porn sales.Eroticized submission and violence (women in submissive positions or in shackles) in advertising is considered normal.Women are regularly displayed in little or almost no clothing alongside fully-clothed men. Men desire women; women are taught to desire being desired.In women: "Beauty" is considered a prerequisite for achieving sexuality. An "ugly woman" is not considered a sexual being. Conversely, sexuality is considered a given for men, "ugly" or not. "Men's sexuality simply is --- they don't have to earn it with their appearance."* * *WorkWolf considers a woman's marriage to be "sexual barter for survival" if she doesn't work outside the home (which was mostly the case until the mid 1960s.)Women going to work and debunking the feminine mystique is supposedly the main reason for the creation and furtherance of the beauty myth. Wolf claims that manufacturers and advertisers panicked when women entered the work force in large numbers because they would lose their biggest purchasing segment of society (housewives). [Sidenote: the primary worldly contribution of housewives was considered to be: buying stuff.] Advertisers didn't like working women because they considered them to be "too critical." They preferred housewives who they believed to be easily misled / bamboozled. Also, housewives were preferred by the men-in-power because taking care of a home and family was (and continues to be) time-consuming and endless. (Therefore, women were too busy to gain any real power.) Wolf makes the assertion that with women suddenly going to work, a new big dilemma became necessary (since women were no longer obsessed with maintaining "perfect" homes). The new obsession would be: beauty, with a spotlight focus on skinniness.In other words, women joining the workforce in record numbers, is the major driving force in the supposed implementation and prevalence of the beauty myth. Wolf argues that if women went back home, and collectively agreed to a life of domesticity once again, the beauty myth would slacken and disappear altogether.* * *What should women do about the "beauty myth?"Don't buy into it.View other women as allies, not competitors.***The breakdown of the "feminine mystique":(1) As women increasingly entered the workforce in droves, women have become financially independent.(2) Contraception is A-ok. The landmark decision in Griswold v. Connecticut has made it such that women no longer have to equate sex with babies [unless so desired].(3) The improvements in medical science regarding antisepsis and anesthetic measures have made childbirth a much less life-threatening and less painful part of the female story.(4) Divorce has become, by and large, socially acceptable.
Do You like book The Beauty Myth (2002)?
tI probably should not have tried reading Mercedes Lackey’s Fire Rose after reading this book. That novel, a retelling of Beauty and the Beast, has a woman as the central character. The woman, Rose, doesn’t realize how beautiful she is and looks down her nose at other women whom she deems to have looks but not brains. Rose has brains (well, she thinks she does) but doesn’t think that she has looks, surprising considering how much effort seems to be put into assuring the reader that despite her claims Rose is, in fact, a looker.tWolf has said a bunch of stupid and inane things since this book was first published and is probably known today by most people as the woman who (1) advised Al Gore how to dress (2) wrote a book about genital or(C) accused Harold Bloom of attempting to rape her, years after the alleged event. [Mr. Bloom denies it, and in fairness, the story seems strange and unbelievable]. This is somewhat sad because there is plenty in this book to recommend it, and it has impacted books that have come after it.tThat isn’t to say this book is flawless. It’s not. I would’ve preferred more statistics. I wondered why the section on face cream sounded like an anti-abortion pamphlet meets urban legend. Wolf’s experiences at college were gone into way too much. Paradoxically telling us she was a victim of the myth as well as rising above it. For record, Elizabeth Bathory also killed noble virgin girls. It was the virginity that was the draw. In fairness, too, most of the arguments seemed to be supported with examples from white women. The question of race is either left out or subsumed into the larger myth. And this is a weakness. True, Wolf couldn’t discuss whether Beyonce was the break out star because of her skin color or her talent, but surely there must be something applicable example from when this book was first written.tThat said, there is much in the book to at the very least make the reader think. The book is at its best when Wolf argues that in a secular society beauty has become a religion. Her comparisons really do give the reader something to think about. Additionally, when she breaks down the ways the myth effects society it is difficult to stay not to see it functioning that way today. At the very least, the section about lawsuits and harassment is worth a read. And she is right – what does it say if women are exposed every day to naked and sexual images of themselves and men are not treated the same way? It is disconcerting. Honestly, why does Cadeaux have to use kidde porn?And what is going on with Dolce and Gabbana?See? Now tell me this book still isn't important.
—Chris
What is the Beauty Myth? I've read a lot of discussion about body image, beauty standards, and objectification, and this book comes up often, but I didn't know what the central "myth" was. Now I think it's more of a network of myths, a Gordian knot that Naomi Wolf tries to slice through here. The Beauty Myth might be expressed:1. The beauty standard is objective and immutable (often, "based in inescapable biological fact") rather than cultural.2. Women's value is determined by their beauty. (value to society, partners, even themselves.)3. While beauty standards are "immutable", women are not, and they have a duty to "better themselves" through beauty processes. (Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, with all the messy virtue/hard work/obligation baggage that idea brings.)This is only part of it, but it's a good start, I hope. In this book Naomi Wolf argues that these myths have gained in cultural power as women (in America, Canada, the UK, et c.) have gained power in the public and corporate spheres. The tyranny of beauty fills the place of more obvious social controls that have been shed.When I first started reading this book (originally published in 1991), I wasn't sure it had aged well. The frantic world of 1980's business Naomi Wolf describes in the Employment section has shifted (though not for female broadcasters, as a local news retrospective spot I saw today, with images of the same anchorman with a different anchorwoman in each decade, attests). The stranglehold of women's magazines on women's dialogue that Wolf discusses is almost hilarious to someone whose reading on feminism and body image largely comes from blogs!However, I soon began to find material that was more resonant with the present day. The dissections of language in advertising -- the spiritual, the martial -- were enlightening. The chapters on "Hunger" and "Sex" made the whole book for me. The section on the author's own experience with teen anorexia was poignant and added depth, but the entire section was chilling, and sadly, still extremely relevant. I have long found the pseudo-Puritan language of "virtue" around self-denial of food noticeable and creepy, so Wolf's detailed attention to this and other metaphors was really interesting to me. I found her discussion of the psychological and political implications of female hunger/dieting disturbing, provoking, amazing. "Dieting is the most potent political sedative in women's history; a quietly mad population is a tractable one."The questions raised in the "Sex" section about the construction of desire and difference in heterosexual relationships were interesting and sharp as well. Finally, the closing sections, which call for change through creativity and positivity, were a pleasant dose of hope and encouragement after the depressing realities discussed throughout the book.I wish I could say that this book hadn't aged well, but it has. While the web may have connected women with each other and given them chances to subvert, support, and connect across generational lines, it's also given an organizing boost to eating disorders, and added more channels for images of "beauty" and "sex" to enter our lives. I don't agree with everything in the book (and I'd love to read an updated version with new data and more focus on the beauty myths' effects on women of color) but the book is thought-provoking, pithy, and incisive.
—Felicity
I especially liked the chapter on sex. A lot of women I know and have known and likely will know certainly have issues with their own sexuality and thinking about it in terms of 'am I sexy to HIM' rather than what makes me feel sated or what makes ME feel sexy. We are a very image based society. But I have also seen a turn around where men are starting to obsess about being good enough too, however, they are nowhere near the overload of an IDEAL BODY we women have to suffer through. Now that I have a daughter heading into her teen years, I realize even more how society makes women feel bad about themselves if they aren't some air brushed ideal. I don't know ONE woman who does not feel bad about herself physically be it her breasts, weight, hair, etc. Even though this book is a bit outdated now, i find it sad a lot of things still have not changed.
—Lolly K Dandeneau
