NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/feminism/2568

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 7.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.claremont.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: [e-mail] (Steve Seidman)
Subject: Beauty Myth (a review)
Nntp-Posting-Host: alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 123
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:29:16 GMT

"The Beauty Myth"  by Naomi Wolf  (c1991, William Morrow & Co.)
 subtitle: How images of beauty are used against women

A book review:

The 'beauty myth' is an ideal image of physical beauty that all
modern women strive toward, at least subconsciously.
Wolf gives this fetish the name Iron Maiden; for it is too hard, too
thin, too perfect to ever achieve and it is ruining women.
Fatigue, depression, eating disorders, overcomsumption of
cosmetics and cutting up breasts (Wolf's term for surgury),
irritibility, lack of orgasm, inability in deciding what
clothes to wear to work, unfair treatment everywhere, and
general unhappiness are a few of the direct results of this
beauty myth.  In the conclusion Wolf makes a few suggestions:
Women's naked retreats (to get used to each other's real bodies),
"politicizing eating disorders" and various vague allusions to
the need for "third wave feminism"

    Sound familiar?  It should be, as there seems to be very
little new in this incredibly overwritten, under-researched book.
Also, there is very little betrayal of deep learning about culture in
this book.  Many of the references are from places like Redbook,
US News & World report, Psychology today, or other books similar
to 'Beauty Myth'.  Very little source material or research papers are
examined.  Now there's nothing wrong with examining popular
magazines if one is studying these magazines.  But in this case
Wolf is actually extracting statistical information as *reported*
in these magazines and then using that to support this concept of
"beauty myth."  There seems to be an total absence of critical
evaluation of the source materials.

    But who ever said this was *supposed* to be a scholarly book.
Perhaps we should ignore some of the pretentious words in this
book like "zeitgeist"  and "myth"  (it's hard to imagine a book
about myth that doesn't at least mention the work of Jung.  Freud's
name comes up but isn't indexed).  In that case, the book seems
nothing more than vast amounts of shrill polemic (lots of carping about
the "establishment") interspersed with tidbits of information (some of it
interesting but undeveloped, and much of it culled from popish
magazines).

    Let's consider some of these interesting tidbits.
There's mention of the vastness of the cosmetics industry and
how some manufacturers pulled advertising contracts from Ms. magazine
when they heard they were going to do some photo essays of middle-aged
women who don't wear makeup.  Of course, the magazines had to cave
into advertising pressure because the beauty myth is so powerful.
(clearly, magazine could not count on good sales to to offset the loss since
their readership is supposedly under the thumb of the Iron Maiden)
Now, if only this topic was developed
from a solid historical approach I think there would be something
really interesting here.  But the interaction of bussiness and culture
and psychology is complex, and not amenable to amateur research methods,
or chirpy, overused neo-Marxist cliches! (and personally, I prefer an
emphasis on personal responsibility rather than all the radical-therapy
outlook)

    Unfortunately this is precisely what happens over and over in
the various chapters of the 'Beauty Myth'  There are chapters on culture,
religion, violence, sex, hunger etc.  Each one bites off a really big
topic, pawns the injustice off on the Iron Maiden, and spits everything
back undigested awash in lots of highly politized rhetoric.  Much is
devoid of any real insight. Rather we are treated to lots of lame-brained
comparisons more suited to a political rally.  And the writing was too
long-winded and stuffy for me to get much out of it as a legitimate
expression of righteous anger and passion.

    Here's a couple of examples of some of these comparisions that
pretend to lend insight.  Wolf very rightfully points out that
'cutting up breasts and putting in sacks of silicone' has the side
effect of causing death of the nipple tissue (and loss of sexual
stimulation there).  That women would ever consider a procedure shows
how much their interest in sexual feelings takes a back seat to the
powerful Iron Maiden.  That's interesting, but then she goes on to
contrast this to the uproar raised over the use of Depo Provera in
the treatment of male sex-offenders to point out how males can have
more value on their sexual stimulation (since they don't suffer from
the beauty myth).  This is typical of many of her statements that are
*almost* wrong.  The comparison of voluntary surgical procedures
(which i agree is horrific) with the issue of court *ordered*
treatments for sex-offenders (and the civil rights issues involved)
is a ridiculous sort of comparison.  Obviously, there's a lot more
at stake in the Depo Provera controversy than mere concern that the
sex-offenders will temporarily loose their sexual stimulation.
Another typical example is her assertion that if anexexia nervosa
was primarily a male disease then obviously there'd be congressional
committees declaring it a national emergency etc.  (please, Naomi,
save this for political rallies or 17-magazine where everyone knows that the
intellectual level will be very low).  There is scarcely a page in the
book that is devoid of this sort of rhetoric.

    The chapter on religion is particularly strange.  Wolf deals
at length on comparing the "cult" of dieting to the Catholic church.
Both have "priests" and "hiearchies" and "rites of passages" etc.
Obviously, the comparison is mostly empty.  In reality, the similarities
are mainly rhetorical, and it is difficult to see what use Wolf's
angry rhetoric could serve.  Perhaps this silliness would
be excusable if it had been meant as satire, but there isn't a shred
of detectable humor to be found.  I think that her theory that male
dominated religion has failed women, so they have taken to the new
religion of 'beauty' etc is like popcorn, there's a kernal of truth,
but it's mostly hot air.

    So we are presented with an ambitious book full of disjointed
information that tries to use an overarching concept of the Beauty
Myth, Iron Maiden, and Beauty Backlash to explain a lot about culture,
medicine, bussiness, sexuality, politics all from a viewpoint that
is supposed to capture academic and popular scholarship and recent
political activism and present both psychology, history, and polemic and
passion.  Wow!  Perhaps Simone de Beauvoir could pull this feat off, but
the Beauty Myth certainly doesn't.

reviewer:  Steven Seidman

send comments to:  [e-mail]


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to [e-mail].
Questions and comments should be sent to [e-mail].  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.