Contents
Cover
About the Book
About the Author
Also by Naomi Wolf
Dedication
Title Page
Epigraph
The Beauty Myth
Work
Culture
Religion
Sex
Hunger
Violence
Beyond The Beauty Myth
Notes
Acknowledgments
Bibliography
Index
Copyright
In the struggle for women’s equality, there is one subject still shrouded in silence – women’s compulsive pursuit of beauty. The myth of female beauty challenges every woman, every day of her life. The author exposes the tyranny of the beauty myth through the ages and its oppressive function today, in the home and at work, in literature and the media, in relationships between men and women, between women and women. With examples, she confronts the beauty industry and its advertising and uncovers the reasons why women are consumed by this destructive obsession.
Naomi Wolf was born in 1962 in San Francisco. She studied at Yale before becoming a Rhodes Scholar at New College, Oxford, and working in Edinburgh. The Beauty Myth was published in 1990 and was an international bestseller. This was followed by Fire with Fire, Promiscuities, Misconceptions and The Tree House, among others.
Fire with Fire: The New Female Power and How It Will Change the 21st Century
Promiscuities: A Secret History of Female Desire
Misconceptions: Truth, Lies and the Unexpected on the Journey to Motherhood
The Treehouse: Eccentric Wisdom on How to Live, Love and See
The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot
Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries
Vagina: A New Biography
It is far more difficult to murder a phantom than a reality.
—Virginia Woolf
I notice that it is the fashion . . . to disclaim any notion of male conspiracy in the oppression of women. . . . “For my part,” I must say with William Lloyd Garrison, “I am not prepared to respect that philosophy. I believe in sin, therefore in a sinner; in theft, therefore in a thief; in slavery, therefore in a slaveholder; in wrong, therefore in a wrong-doer.”
—Ann Jones
The fear of freedom is strong within us.
—Germaine Greer
I own this book to the support of my family: Leonard and Deborah and Aaron Wolfe, Daniel Goleman, Tara Bennet-Goleman, Anasuya Weil and Tom Weil. I’m expecially grateful to my grandmother, Fay Goleman, on whose unflagging encouragement I depended and whose life—as family services pioneer, professor, wife, mother, and early feminist—gives continual inspiration. I’m grateful to Ruth Sullivan, Esther Boner, Lily Rivlin, Michele Landsberg, Joanne Stewart, Florence Lewis, Patricia Pierce, Alan Shoaf, Polly Shulman, Elizabeth Alexander, Rhonda Garelick, Amruta Slee, and Barbara Browning for their vital contributions to my work. Jane Meara and Jim Landis gave their thoughtful editorial attention very generously. Colin Troup was a ready source of comfort, contentiousness, and amusement. And I am indebted to the theorists of femininity of the second wave, without whose struggles with these issues I could not have begun my own.
‘A daring, startlingly brilliant book’
Carol Gilligan
In this dynamic new book Naomi Wolf explores and celebrates the phenomenon of female sexuality – empirically, imaginatively, anatomically and personally. By following a group of four contemporary girls – including her younger self as they come of age in the seventies, Wolf shows how our culture tries to shape and confine women’s desire. Embarking on a voyage of discovery, she illustrates how flawed and prescribed are the notions of what women want, and how these change through the ages – from Taoist techniques for giving women pleasure, to Victorian repression, and the so-called liberated nineties. Drawing on scholarly texts, secret diaries, real life and fantasy, she demonstrates that female sexuality is wilder, more demanding and more powerful than our culture dares to accept.
‘The prevailing fantasy is that, while men have a sexual “past”, women have none . . . Wolf, in Promiscuities, smashes that taboo, both directly by talking about herself, and indirectly by relaying the confidences of her pseudonymous friends. The result makes fascinating reading.’
The Times
‘At last a new generation of women writers is addressing the powerful issue of female sexuality. I gulped this wonderful book down in one sitting, like a novel. Brava Naomi Wolf for your courage, your intelligence, your lucid prose’
Erica Jong
‘Naomi Wolf goes much deeper here than she ever has before’
Erica Jong
‘Wolf’s many bold demands . . . give us pause and present challenges; society should restructure itself to accommodate babies.’
Guardian
‘Wolf’s polemic is as clear and sure as ever’
Observer
Every year, millions of women have their lives turned inside out by the experience of pregnancy. A contemporary woman finds herself caught in an absurd paradox: while in the grip of one of the most primal, lonely, sensual and in some ways, psychologically debilitating and physically dangerous experiences, she is overwhelmed by invasive, trivialising and infantilising cultural messages about what is happening to her – and who really owns the experience.
‘Fiercely confident and uncompromising.’
Publishers Weekly
de Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. New York: Penguin, 1986. (1949)
Greer, Germaine. The Female Eunuch. London: Paladin Grafton Books, 1985.
Reed, Evelyn. Sexism and Science. New York: Pathfinder Press, 1978.
——. Woman’s Evolution: From Matriarchal Clan to Patriarchal Family. New York: Pathfinder Press, 1975.
Russett, Cynthia Eagle. Sexual Science: The Victorian Construction of Womanhood. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Stone, Merlin. When God Was a Woman. San Diego: Harvest, 1976.
Walker, Barbara G. The Crone: Woman of Age, Wisdom, and Power. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.
Anderson, Bonnie S., and Judith P. Zinsser. A History of Their Own: Women in Europe from Prehistory to the Present. Vols. I and II. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.
Cava, Anita. “Taking Judicial Notice of Sexual Stereotyping (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 109 S. Ct. 1775),” in Arkansas Law Review. Vol. 43 (1990), pp. 27–56.
Cohen, Marcia. The Sisterhood: The Inside Story of the Women’s Movement and the Leaders Who Made It Happen. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1988.
Craft, Christine. Too Old, Too Ugly, and Not Deferential to Men. New York: Dell, 1988.
Eisenstein, Hester. Contemporary Feminist Thought. London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1985.
Eisenstein, Zillah R. The Female Body and the Law. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.
Hearn, Jeff; Deborah L. Sheppard; Peta Tancred-Sheriff; and Gibson Burrell, eds. The Sexuality of Organization. London: Sage Publications, 1989.
Hewlett, Sylvia Ann. A Lesser Life. New York: Warner Books, 1986.
Hochschild, Arlie, with Anne Machung. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New York: Viking, 1989.
Kanowitz, Leo. Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1975.
Lefkowitz, Rochelle, and Ann Withorn, eds. For Crying Out Loud: Women and Poverty in the United States. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1986.
MacKinnon, Catharine A. Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987.
——. Sexual Harassment of Working Women. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.
——. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Miles, Rosalind. The Women’s History of the World. London: Paladin, 1989.
Millett, Kate. Sexual Politics. London: Virago, 1985.
Minton, Michael, with Jean Libman Block. What Is a Wife Worth? New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983.
Molloy, John T. The Woman’s Dress for Success Book. New York: Warner Books, 1977.
Oakley, Ann. Housewife; High Value/Low Cost. London: Penguin, 1987.
Richards, Janet Radcliffe. “The Unadorned Feminist” in The Sceptical Feminist: A Philosophical Enquiry. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1980.
Radford, Mary F. “Beyond Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (109 S. Ct. 1775): A New Approach to Mixed Motive Discrimination” in North Carolina Law Review. Vol. 68 (March 1990), pp. 495–539.
——. “Sex Stereotyping and the Promotion of Women to Positions of Power,” in The Hastings Law Journal. Vol. 41 (March 1990), pp. 471–535.
Rix, Sarah E., ed. The American Woman, 1988–89: A Status Report. New York: W. W. Norton, 1988.
Rowbotham, Sheila. Woman’s Consciousness, Man’s World. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1983.
Sidel, Ruth. Women and Children Last: The Plight of Poor Women in Affluent America. New York: Penguin, 1986.
Swan, Peter N. “Subjective Hiring and Promotion Decisions in the Wake of Ft. Worth (Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 108 S. Ct. 2777), Antonio (Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc. v. Antonio, 109 S. Ct. 2115) and Price Waterhouse (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 109 S. Ct. 1775),” in The Journal of College and University Law. Vol. 16 (Spring 1990), pp. 553–72.
Taylor, Debbie et. al. Women: A World Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Tong, Rosemary. Women, Sex, and the Law. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld, 1984.
Steinem, Gloria. Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983.
Waring, Marilyn. If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.
Appel, Willa. Cults in America: Programmed for Paradise. New York: Henry Holt, 1983.
Cott, Nancy F. The Bonds of Womanhood: “Woman’s Sphere” in New England, 1780–1835. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.
——. Root of Bitterness: Documents of the Social History of American Women. New York: Dutton, 1972.
Galanter, Marc, ed. Cults and Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association. Washington, D.C.: The American Psychiatric Association, 1989.
Halperin, David A., ed. Psychodynamic Perspectives on Religion, Sect and Cult. Boston: J. Wright, PSG, Inc., 1983.
Hassan, Steven. Combating Cult Mind Control. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.
Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. New York: W. W. Norton, 1979.
McKnight, Gerald. The Skin Game: The International Beauty Business Brutally Exposed. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1989.
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books, 1988.
Brookner, Anita. Look at Me. London: Triad Grafton, 1982.
Chorlton, Penny. Cover-up: Taking the Lid Off the Cosmetics Industry. Wellingborough, England: Grapevine, 1988.
Ferguson, Marjorie. Forever Feminine: Women’s Magazines and the Cult of Femininity. Brookfield, England: Gower, 1985.
Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. London: Penguin Books, 1982.
——. The Second Stage. New York: Summit Books, 1981.
Gamman, Lorraine, and Margaret Marshment, eds. The Female Gaze: Women as Viewers of Popular Culture. London: The Women’s Press, 1988.
Gay, Peter. The Bourgeois Experience: Victoria to Freud. Volume I: Education of the Senses. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.
——. The Bourgeois Experience: Victoria to Freud. Volume II: The Tender Passion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Kent, S., and J. Morreau, eds. Women’s Images of Men. New York: Writers and Readers Publishing, 1985.
Lapham, Lewis H. Money and Class in America: Notes on the Civil Religion. London: Picador, 1989.
Oakley, Ann. The Sociology of Housework. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.
Reich, Wilhelm. The Mass Psychology of Fascism. New York: Penguin Books, 1978.
Root, Jane. Pictures of Women: Sexuality. London: Pandora Press, 1984.
Wilson, Elizabeth, and Lou Taylor. Through the Looking Glass: A History of Dress from 1860 to the Present Day. London: BBC Books, 1989.
Winship, Janice. Inside Women’s Magazines. London: Pandora Press, 1987.
Brownmiller, Susan. Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1975.
Carter, Angela. The Sadean Woman: An Exercise in Cultural History. London: Virago Press, 1987.
Caputi, Jane. The Age of Sex Crime. London: The Women’s Press, Ltd., 1987.
Cassell, Carol. Swept Away: Why Women Fear Their Own Sexuality. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984.
Chodorow, Nancy J. Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
Cole, Susan G. Pornography and the Sex Crisis. Toronto: Amanita, 1989.
Coward, Rosalind. Female Desire: Women’s Sexuality Today. London: Paladin, 1984.
Crewdson, John. By Silence Betrayed: The Sexual Abuse of Children in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.
Danica, Elly. Don’t: A Woman’s Word. London: The Women’s Press, 1988.
Dinnerstein, Dorothy. Sexual Arrangements and the Human Malaise. New York: Harper Colophon, 1976.
Dworkin, Andrea. Pornography: Men Possessing Women. London: The Women’s Press, 1984.
Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Deirdre English. For Her Own Good: 150 Years of the Experts’ Advice to Women. New York: Anchor/Doubleday, 1979.
——, Elizabeth Hess, and Gloria Jacobs. Re-Making Love: The Feminization of Sex. New York: Anchor/Doubleday 1986.
Estrich, Susan. Real Rape. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987.
Finkelhor, David. Sexually Victimized Children. New York: The Free Press, 1979.
——, and Kersti Yllo. License to Rape: Sexual Abuse of Wives. New York: The Free Press, 1985.
Firestone, Shulamith. The Dialectic of Sex. New York: Bantam, 1971.
Friday, Nancy. My Secret Garden: Women’s Sexual Fantasies. New York: Pocket Books, 1974.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage, 1980.
Griffin, Susan. Pornography and Silence. New York: Harper & Row, 1984.
Hite, Shere. The Hite Report on Female Sexuality. London: Pandora Press, 1989.
Katz, Judy H. No Fairy Godmothers, No Magic Wands: The Healing Process After Rape. Saratoga, Calif.: R&E Publishers, 1984.
Kinsey, A. C.; W. B. Pomeroy; C. E. Martin; and P. H. Gebhard, eds. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1948.
Minot, Susan. Lust and Other Stories. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989.
Mitchell, Juliet, and Jacqueline Rose, eds.; Jacques Lacan and The Ecole Freudienne. Feminine Sexuality. London: MacMillan, 1982.
——. Psychoanalysis and Feminism: Freud, Reich, Lang and Women. New York: Vintage Books, 1974.
Russell, Diana E. H. The Politics of Rape: The Victim’s Perspective. New York: Stein & Day, 1984.
——. Rape in Marriage. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1990.
——. “The Incidence and Prevalence of Intrafamilial and Extrafamilial Sexual Abuse of Female Children,” in International Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect, 7 (1983), pp. 133–139.
Snitow, Ann; Christine Stansell; and Sharon Thompson; eds. The Powers of Desire. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1983.
Suleiman, Susan Rubin. The Female Body in Western Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986. Vance, Carol S., ed. Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984.
Warshaw, Robin. I Never Called It Rape. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.
Woolf, Virginia. Three Guineas. New York: Penguin Books, 1982.
Walker, Alice. You Can’t Keep a Good Woman Down. San Diego: Harvest, 1988.
Atwood, Margaret. The Edible Woman. London: Virago Press, 1989.
Barnett, Rosalind C.; Lois Biener; and Grace K. Baruch, eds. Gender and Stress. New York: The Free Press, 1987.
Bell, Rudolph. Holy Anorexia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1985.
Bruch, Hilde; Danita Czyzewski; and Melanie A. Suhr, eds. Conversations with Anorexics. New York: Basic Books, 1988.
——. Eating Disorders: Obesity, Anorexia Nervosa and the Person Within. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974.
——. The Golden Cage: The Enigma of Anorexia Nervosa. London: Open Books, 1978.
Brumberg, Joan Jacobs. Fasting Girls: The Emergence of Anorexia Nervosa as a Modern Disease. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988.
Chernin, Kim. The Hungry Self: Women, Eating and Identity. London: Virago Press, 1986.
——. The Obsession: Reflections on the Tyranny of Slenderness. New York: Perennial Library, 1981.
Hollander, Ann. Seeing Through Clothes. New York: Penguin, 1988.
Hsu, L. K. George. Eating Disorders. New York: The Guilford Press, 1990.
Jacobus, Mary; Evelyn Fox Keller; and Sally Shuttleworth; eds. Body/Politics: Women and the Discourses of Science. New York: Routledge, 1990. See especially, Susan Bordo, “Reading the Slender Body,” pp. 83–112.
Lawrence, Marilyn. The Anorexic Experience. London: The Women’s Press, 1988.
——, ed. Fed Up and Hungry. London: The Women’s Press, 1987.
Orbach, Susie. Fat Is a Feminist Issue. London: Hamlyn, 1979.
——. Hunger Strike: The Anorectic’s Struggle as a Metaphor for our Age. London: Faber and Faber, 1986 (especially pp. 74–95).
Pomeroy, Sarah B. Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity. New York: Schocken Books, 1975.
Pyke, Magnus. Man and Food. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970.
Seid, Roberta Pollack. Never Too Thin: Why Women Are at War with Their Bodies. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1989.
Szekeley, Eva. Never Too Thin. Toronto: The Women’s Press, 1988.
Tolmach Lakoff, Robin, and Raquel L. Scherr. Face Value: The Politics of Beauty. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984.
Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One’s Own. San Diego: Harvest/HBJ, 1989.
Brighton Women and Science Group. Alice Through the Microscope: The Power of Science Over Women’s Lives. London: Virago Press, 1980.
Chesler, Phyllis. Women and Madness. Garden City. N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1972.
Dworkin, Andrea. Letters from a War Zone: Writing 1976–1987. London: Secker & Warburg, 1988.
——. Woman Hating. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1974.
Kappeler, Susanne. The Pornography of Representation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986.
Karmi, Amnon, ed. Medical Experimentation. Ramat Gan, Israel: Turtledove Publishing, 1978.
Koonz, Claudia. Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family and Nazi Politics. London: Methuen, 1987.
Lifton, Robert Jay. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. New York: Basic Books, 1986.
Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. New York: Virago Press, 1986.
Showalter, Elaine. The Female Malady: Women, Madness and English Culture, 1830–1980. New York: Penguin, 1987.
Silverman, William A. Human Experimentation: A Guided Step into the Unknown. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Solomon, Michael R., ed. The Psychology of Fashion. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1985.
Sontag, Susan. A Susan Sontag Reader. New York: Vintage Books, 1983.
Stage, Sarah. Female Complaints: Lydia Pinkham and the Business of Women’s Medicine. New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.
Weldon, Fay. The Life and Loves of a She-Devil. London: Coronet Books, 1983.
Banner, Lois W. American Beauty. New York: Knopf, 1983.
Brownmiller, Susan. Femininity. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984.
Freedman, Rita Jackaway. Beauty Bound. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1986.
Hatfield, Elaine, and Susan Sprecher. Mirror, Mirror: The Importance of Looks in Everyday Life. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986.
Kinzer, Nora Scott. Put Down and Ripped Off: The American Woman and the Beauty Cult. New York: Crowell, 1977.
AT LAST, AFTER a long silence, women took to the streets. In the two decades of radical action that followed the rebirth of feminism in the early 1970s, Western women gained legal and reproductive rights, pursued higher education, entered the trades and the professions, and overturned ancient and revered beliefs about their social role. A generation on, do women feel free?
The affluent, educated, liberated women of the First World, who can enjoy freedoms unavailable to any women ever before, do not feel as free as they want to. And they can no longer restrict to the subconscious their sense that this lack of freedom has something to do with—with apparently frivolous issues, things that really should not matter. Many are ashamed to admit that such trivial concerns—to do with physical appearance, bodies, faces, hair, clothes—matter so much. But in spite of shame, guilt, and denial, more and more women are wondering if it isn’t that they are entirely neurotic and alone but rather that something important is indeed at stake that has to do with the relationship between female liberation and female beauty.
The more legal and material hindrances women have broken through, the more strictly and heavily and cruelly images of female beauty have come to weigh upon us. Many women sense that women’s collective progress has stalled; compared with the heady momentum of earlier days, there is a dispiriting climate of confusion, division, cynicism, and above all, exhaustion. After years of much struggle and little recognition, many older women feel burned out; after years of taking its light for granted, many younger women show little interest in touching new fire to the torch.
During the past decade, women breached the power structure; meanwhile, eating disorders rose exponentially and cosmetic surgery became the fastest-growing medical specialty. During the past five years, consumer spending doubled, pornography became the main media category, ahead of legitimate films and records combined, and thirty-three thousand American women told researchers that they would rather lose ten to fifteen pounds than achieve any other goal. More women have more money and power and scope and legal recognition than we have ever had before; but in terms of how we feel about ourselves physically, we may actually be worse off than our unliberated grandmothers. Recent research consistently shows that inside the majority of the West’s controlled, attractive, successful working women, there is a secret “underlife” poisoning our freedom; infused with notions of beauty, it is a dark vein of self-hatred, physical obsessions, terror of aging, and dread of lost control.
It is no accident that so many potentially powerful women feel this way. We are in the midst of a violent backlash against feminism that uses images of female beauty as a political weapon against women’s advancement: the beauty myth. It is the modern version of a social reflex that has been in force since the Industrial Revolution. As women released themselves from the feminine mystique of domesticity, the beauty myth took over its lost ground, expanding as it waned to carry on its work of social control.
The contemporary backlash is so violent because the ideology of beauty is the last one remaining of the old feminine ideologies that still has the power to control those women whom second wave feminism would have otherwise made relatively uncontrollable: It has grown stronger to take over the work of social coercion that myths about motherhood, domesticity, chastity, and passivity, no longer can manage. It is seeking right now to undo psychologically and covertly all the good things that feminism did for women materially and overtly.
This counterforce is operating to checkmate the inheritance of feminism on every level in the lives of Western women. Feminism gave us laws against job discrimination based on gender; immediately case law evolved in Britain and the United States that institutionalized job discrimination based on women’s appearances. Patriarchal religion declined; new religious dogma, using some of the mind-altering techniques of older cults and sects, arose around age and weight to functionally supplant traditional ritual. Feminists, inspired by Friedan, broke the stranglehold on the women’s popular press of advertisers for household products, who were promoting the feminine mystique; at once, the diet and skin care industries became the new cultural censors of women’s intellectual space, and because of their pressure, the gaunt, youthful model supplanted the happy housewife as the arbiter of successful womanhood. The sexual revolution promoted the discovery of female sexuality; “beauty pornography”—which for the first time in women’s history artificially links a commodified “beauty” directly and explicitly to sexuality—invaded the mainstream to undermine women’s new and vulnerable sense of sexual self-worth. Reproductive rights gave Western women control over our own bodies; the weight of fashion models plummeted to 23 percent below that of ordinary women, eating disorders rose exponentially, and a mass neurosis was promoted that used food and weight to strip women of that sense of control. Women insisted on politicizing health; new technologies of invasive, potentially dangerous “cosmetic” surgeries developed apace to re-exert old forms of medical control of women.
Every generation since about 1830 has had to fight its version of the beauty myth. “It is very little to me,” said the suffragist Lucy Stone in 1855, “to have the right to vote, to own property, etcetera, if I may not keep my body, and its uses, in my absolute right.” Eighty years later, after women had won the vote, and the first wave of the organized women’s movement had subsided, Virginia Woolf wrote that it would still be decades before women could tell the truth about their bodies. In 1962, Betty Friedan quoted a young woman trapped in the Feminine Mystique: “Lately, I look in the mirror, and I’m so afraid I’m going to look like my mother.” Eight years after that, heralding the cataclysmic second wave of feminism, Germaine Greer described “the Stereotype”: “To her belongs all that is beautiful, even the very word beauty itself . . . she is a doll . . . I’m sick of the masquerade.” In spite of the great revolution of the second wave, we are not exempt. Now we can look out over ruined barricades: A revolution has come upon us and changed everything in its path, enough time has passed since then for babies to have grown into women, but there still remains a final right not fully claimed.
The beauty myth tells a story: The quality called “beauty” objectively and universally exists. Women must want to embody it and men must want to possess women who embody it. This embodiment is an imperative for women and not for men, which situation is necessary and natural because it is biological, sexual, and evolutionary: Strong men battle for beautiful women, and beautiful women are more reproductively successful. Women’s beauty must correlate to their fertility, and since this system is based on sexual selection, it is inevitable and changeless.
None of this is true. “Beauty” is a currency system like the gold standard. Like any economy, it is determined by politics, and in the modern age in the West it is the last, best belief system that keeps male dominance intact. In assigning value to women in a vertical hierarchy according to a culturally imposed physical standard, it is an expression of power relations in which women must unnaturally compete for resources that men have appropriated for themselves.
“Beauty” is not universal or changeless, though the West pretends that all ideals of female beauty stem from one Platonic Ideal Woman; the Maori admire a fat vulva, and the Padung, droopy breasts. Nor is “beauty” a function of evolution: Its ideals change at a pace far more rapid than that of the evolution of species, and Charles Darwin was himself unconvinced by his own explanation that “beauty” resulted from a “sexual selection” that deviated from the rule of natural selection; for women to compete with women through “beauty” is a reversal of the way in which natural selection affects all other mammals. Anthropology has overturned the notion that females must be “beautiful” to be selected to mate: Evelyn Reed, Elaine Morgan, and others have dismissed sociobiological assertions of innate male polygamy and female monogamy. Female higher primates are the sexual initiators; not only do they seek out and enjoy sex with many partners, but “every nonpregnant female takes her turn at being the most desirable of all her troop. And that cycle keeps turning as long as she lives.” The inflamed pink sexual organs of primates are often cited by male sociobiologists as analogous to human arrangements relating to female “beauty,” when in fact that is a universal, nonhierarchical female primate characteristic.
Nor has the beauty myth always been this way. Though the pairing of the older rich men with young, “beautiful” women is taken to be somehow inevitable, in the matriarchal Goddess religions that dominated the Mediterranean from about 25,000 B.C.E. to about 700 B.C.E., the situation was reversed: “In every culture, the Goddess has many lovers. . . . The clear pattern is of an older woman with a beautiful but expendable youth—Ishtar and Tammuz, Venus and Adonis, Cybele and Attis, Isis and Osiris . . . their only function the service of the divine ‘womb.’” Nor is it something only women do and only men watch: Among the Nigerian Wodaabes, the women hold economic power and the tribe is obsessed with male beauty; Wodaabe men spend hours together in elaborate makeup sessions, and compete—provocatively painted and dressed, with swaying hips and seductive expressions—in beauty contests judged by women. There is no legitimate historical or biological justification for the beauty myth; what it is doing to women today is a result of nothing more exalted than the need of today’s power structure, economy, and culture to mount a counteroffensive against women.
If the beauty myth is not based on evolution, sex, gender, aesthetics, or God, on what is it based? It claims to be about intimacy and sex and life, a celebration of women. It is actually composed of emotional distance, politics, finance, and sexual repression. The beauty myth is not about women at all. It is about men’s institutions and institutional power.
The qualities that a given period calls beautiful in women are merely symbols of the female behavior that that period considers desirable: The beauty myth is always actually prescribing behavior and not appearance. Competition between women has been made part of the myth so that women will be divided from one another. Youth and (until recently) virginity have been “beautiful” in women since they stand for experiential and sexual ignorance. Aging in women is “unbeautiful” since women grow more powerful with time, and since the links between generations of women must always be newly broken: Older women fear young ones, young women fear old, and the beauty myth truncates for all the female life span. Most urgently, women’s identity must be premised upon our “beauty” so that we will remain vulnerable to outside approval, carrying the vital sensitive organ of self-esteem exposed to the air.
Though there has, of course, been a beauty myth in some form for as long as there has been patriarchy, the beauty myth in its modern form is a fairly recent invention. The myth flourishes when material constraints on women are dangerously loosened. Before the Industrial Revolution, the average woman could not have had the same feelings about “beauty” that modern women do who experience the myth as continual comparison to a mass-disseminated physical ideal. Before the development of technologies of mass production—daguerrotypes, photographs, etc.—an ordinary woman was exposed to few such images outside the Church. Since the family was a productive unit and women’s work complemented men’s, the value of women who were not aristocrats or prostitutes lay in their work skills, economic shrewdness, physical strength, and fertility. Physical attraction, obviously, played its part; but “beauty” as we understand it was not, for ordinary women, a serious issue in the marriage marketplace. The beauty myth in its modern form gained ground after the upheavals of industrialization, as the work unit of the family was destroyed, and urbanization and the emerging factory system demanded what social engineers of the time termed the “separate sphere” of domesticity, which supported the new labor category of the “breadwinner” who left home for the workplace during the day. The middle class expanded, the standards of living and of literacy rose, the size of families shrank; a new class of literate, idle women developed, on whose submission to enforced domesticity the evolving system of industrial capitalism depended. Most of our assumptions about the way women have always thought about “beauty” date from no earlier than the 1830s, when the cult of domesticity was first consolidated and the beauty index invented.
For the first time new technologies could reproduce—in fashion plates, daguerreotypes, tintypes, and rotogravures—images of how women should look. In the 1840s the first nude photographs of prostitutes were taken; advertisements using images of “beautiful” women first appeared in mid-century. Copies of classical artworks, postcards of society beauties and royal mistresses, Currier and Ives prints, and porcelain figurines flooded the separate sphere to which middle-class women were confined.
Since the Industrial Revolution, middle-class Western women have been controlled by ideals and stereotypes as much as by material constraints. This situation, unique to this group, means that analyses that trace “cultural conspiracies” are uniquely plausible in relation to them. The rise of the beauty myth was just one of several emerging social fictions that masqueraded as natural components of the feminine sphere, the better to enclose those women inside it. Other such fictions arose contemporaneously: a version of childhood that required continual maternal supervision; a concept of female biology that required middle-class women to act out the roles of hysterics and hypochondriacs; a conviction that respectable women were sexually anesthetic; and a definition of women’s work that occupied them with repetitive, time-consuming, and painstaking tasks such as needlepoint and lacemaking. All such Victorian inventions as these served a double function—that is, though they were encouraged as a means to expend female energy and intelligence in harmless ways, women often used them to express genuine creativity and passion.
But in spite of middle-class women’s creativity with fashion and embroidery and child rearing, and, a century later, with the role of the suburban housewife that devolved from these social fictions, the fictions’ main purpose was served: During a century and a half of unprecedented feminist agitation, they effectively counteracted middle-class women’s dangerous new leisure, literacy, and relative freedom from material constraints.
Though these time- and mind-consuming fictions about women’s natural role adapted themselves to resurface in the postwar Feminine Mystique, when the second wave of the women’s movement took apart what women’s magazines had portrayed as the “romance,” “science,” and “adventure” of homemaking and suburban family life, they temporarily failed. The cloying domestic fiction of “togetherness” lost its meaning and middle-class women walked out of their front doors in masses.
So the fictions simply transformed themselves once more: Since the women’s movement had successfully taken apart most other necessary fictions of femininity, all the work of social control once spread out over the whole network of these fictions had to be reassigned to the only strand left intact, which action consequently strengthened it a hundredfold. This reimposed onto liberated women’s faces and bodies all the limitations, taboos, and punishments of the repressive laws, religious injunctions and reproductive enslavement that no longer carried sufficient force. Inexhaustible but ephemeral beauty work took over from inexhaustible but ephemeral housework. As the economy, law, religion, sexual mores, education, and culture were forcibly opened up to include women more fairly, a private reality colonized female consciousness. By using ideas about “beauty,” it reconstructed an alternative female world with its own laws, economy, religion, sexuality, education, and culture, each element as repressive as any that had gone before.
Since middle-class Western women can best be weakened psychologically now that we are stronger materially, the beauty myth, as it has resurfaced in the last generation, has had to draw on more technological sophistication and reactionary fervor than ever before. The modern arsenal of the myth is a dissemination of millions of images of the current ideal; although this barrage is generally seen as a collective sexual fantasy, there is in fact little that is sexual about it. It is summoned out of political fear on the part of male-dominated institutions threatened by women’s freedom, and it exploits female guilt and apprehension about our own liberation—latent fears that we might be going too far. This frantic aggregation of imagery is a collective reactionary hallucination willed into being by both men and women stunned and disoriented by the rapidity with which gender relations have been transformed: a bulwark of reassurance against the flood of change. The mass depiction of the modern woman as a “beauty” is a contradiction: Where modern women are growing, moving, and expressing their individuality, as the myth has it, “beauty” is by definition inert, timeless, and generic. That this hallucination is necessary and deliberate is evident in the way “beauty” so directly contradicts women’s real situation.
And the unconscious hallucination grows ever more influential and pervasive because of what is now conscious market manipulation: powerful industries—the $33-billion-a-year diet industry, the $20-billion cosmetics industry, the $300-million cosmetic surgery industry, and the $7-billion pornography industry—have arisen from the capital made out of unconscious anxieties, and are in turn able, through their influence on mass culture, to use, stimulate, and reinforce the hallucination in a rising economic spiral.
This is not a conspiracy theory; it doesn’t have to be. Societies tell themselves necessary fictions in the same way that individuals and families do. Henrik Ibsen called them “vital lies,” and psychologist Daniel Goleman describes them working the same way on the social level that they do within families: “The collusion is maintained by directing attention away from the fearsome fact, or by repackaging its meaning in an acceptable format.” The costs of these social blind spots, he writes, are destructive communal illusions. Possibilities for women have become so open-ended that they threaten to destabilize the institutions on which a male-dominated culture has depended, and a collective panic reaction on the part of both sexes has forced a demand for counterimages.
The resulting hallucination materializes, for women, as something all too real. No longer just an idea, it becomes three-dimensional, incorporating within itself how women live and how they do not live: It becomes the Iron Maiden. The original Iron Maiden was a medieval German instrument of torture, a body-shaped casket painted with the limbs and features of a lovely, smiling young woman. The unlucky victim was slowly enclosed inside her; the lid fell shut to immobilize the victim, who died either of starvation or, less cruelly, of the metal spikes embedded in her interior. The modern hallucination in which women are trapped or trap themselves is similarly rigid, cruel, and euphemistically painted. Contemporary culture directs attention to imagery of the Iron Maiden, while censoring real women’s faces and bodies.
Why does the social order feel the need to defend itself by evading the fact of real women, our faces and voices and bodies, and reducing the meaning of women to these formulaic and endlessly reproduced “beautiful” images? Though unconscious personal anxieties can be a powerful force in the creation of a vital lie, economic necessity practically guarantees it. An economy that depends on slavery needs to promote images of slaves that “justify” the institution of slavery. Western economies are absolutely dependent now on the continued underpayment of women. An ideology that makes women feel “worth less” was urgently needed to counteract the way feminism had begun to make us feel worth more. This does not require a conspiracy; merely an atmosphere. The contemporary economy depends right now on the representation of women within the beauty myth. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith offers an economic explanation for “the persistence of the view of homemaking as a ‘higher calling’”: the concept of women as naturally trapped within the Feminine Mystique, he feels, “has been forced on us by popular sociology, by magazines, and by fiction to disguise the fact that woman in her role of consumer has been essential to the development of our industrial society. . . . Behavior that is essential for economic reasons is transformed into a social virtue.” As soon as a woman’s primary social value could no longer be defined as the attainment of virtuous domesticity, the beauty myth redefined it as the attainment of virtuous beauty. It did so to substitute both a new consumer imperative and a new justification for economic unfairness in the workplace where the old ones had lost their hold over newly liberated women.
Another hallucination arose to accompany that of the Iron Maiden: The caricature of the Ugly Feminist was resurrected to dog the steps of the women’s movement. The caricature is unoriginal; it was coined to ridicule the feminists of the nineteenth century. Lucy Stone herself, whom supporters saw as “a prototype of womanly grace . . . fresh and fair as the morning,” was derided by detractors with “the usual report” about Victorian feminists: “a big masculine woman, wearing boots, smoking a cigar, swearing like a trooper.” As Betty Friedan put it presciently in 1960, even before the savage revamping of that old caricature: “The unpleasant image of feminists today resembles less the feminists themselves than the image fostered by the interests who so bitterly opposed the vote for women in state after state.” Thirty years on, her conclusion is more true than ever: That resurrected caricature, which sought to punish women for their public acts by going after their private sense of self, became the paradigm for new limits placed on aspiring women everywhere. After the success of the women’s movement’s second wave, the beauty myth was perfected to checkmate power at every level in individual women’s lives. The modern neuroses of life in the female body spread to woman after woman at epidemic rates. The myth is undermining—slowly, imperceptibly, without our being aware of the real forces of erosion—the ground women have gained through long, hard, honorable struggle.
The beauty myth of the present is more insidious than any mystique of femininity yet: A century ago, Nora slammed the door of the doll’s house; a generation ago, women turned their backs on the consumer heaven of the isolated multiapplianced home; but where women are trapped today, there is no door to slam. The contemporary ravages of the beauty backlash are destroying women physically and depleting us psychologically. If we are to free ourselves from the dead weight that has once again been made out of femaleness, it is not ballots or lobbyists or placards that women will need first; it is a new way to see.
SINCE MEN HAVE used women’s “beauty” as a form of currency in circulation among men, ideas about “beauty” have evolved since the Industrial Revolution side by side with ideas about money, so that the two are virtual parallels in our consumer economy. A woman looks like a million dollars, she’s a first-class beauty, her face is her fortune. In the bourgeois marriage markets of the last century, women learned to understand their own beauty as part of this economy.
By the time the women’s movement had made inroads into the labor market, both women and men were accustomed to having beauty evaluated as wealth. Both were prepared for the striking development that followed: As women demanded access to power, the power structure used the beauty myth materially to undermine women’s advancement.
A transformer plugs into a machine at one end, and an energy source at the other, to change an unusable current into one compatible with the machine. The beauty myth was institutionalized in the past two decades as a transformer between women and public life. It links women’s energy into the machine of power while altering the machine as little as possible to accommodate them; at the same time, like the transformer, it weakens women’s energy at its point of origin. It does that to ensure that the machine actually scans women’s input in a code that suits the power structure.
With the decay of the Feminine Mystique, women swelled the work force. The percentage of women in the United States with jobs rose from 31.8 percent after World War II to 53.4 percent in 1984; of those aged twenty-five to fifty-four, two thirds hold jobs. In Sweden, 77 percent of women hold jobs, as do 55 percent of French women. By 1986, 63 percent of British women did paid work. As Western women entered the modern work force, the value system of the marriage market was taken over intact by the labor economy, to be used against their claims to access. The enthusiasm with which the job market assigned financial value to qualifications from the marriage market proves that the use of the beauty myth is political and not sexual: The job market refined the beauty myth as a way to legitimize employment discrimination against women.
When women breached the power structure in the 1980s, the two economies finally merged. Beauty was no longer just a symbolic form of currency; it literally became money. The informal currency system of the marriage market, formalized in the workplace, was enshrined in the law. Where women escaped from the sale of their sexuality in a marriage market to which they had been confined by economic dependence, their new bid for economic independence was met with a nearly identical barter system. And the higher women climbed during this period up the rungs of professional hierarchies, the harder the beauty myth has worked to undermine each step.
There has never been such a potentially destabilizing immigrant group asking for a fair chance to compete for access to power. Consider what threatens the power structure in the stereotypes of other newcomers. Jews are feared for their educational tradition and (for those from Western Europe) haut bourgeois memories. Asians in the United States and Great Britain, Algerians in France, and Turks in Germany are feared for their Third World patterns of grueling work at low pay. And the African-American underclass in the United States is feared for the explosive fusion of minority consciousness and rage. In women’s easy familiarity with the dominant culture, in the bourgeois expectations of those who are middle class, in their Third World work habits, and in their potential to fuse the anger and loyalties of a galvanized underclass, the power structure correctly identifies a Frankenstein composite of its worst minority terrors. Beauty discrimination has become necessary, not from the perception that women will not be good enough, but that they will be, as they have been, twice as good.
And the old-boy network faces in this immigrant group a monster on a scale far greater than those it made out of other ethnic minorities, because women are not a minority. At 52.4 percent of the population, women are the majority.
This explains the fierce nature of the beauty backlash. This clarifies why its development has become totalitarian so fast. The pressure on the power elite can be understood by any minority ruler of an agitated majority that is beginning to appreciate its own considerable strength. In a meritocracy worth its name, the gathering gravity of events would soon and forever alter not only who the power holders are, but what power itself might look like and to what new goals it might be dedicated.
Employers did not simply develop the beauty backlash because they wanted office decoration. It evolved out of fear. That fear, from the point of view of the power structure, is firmly grounded. The beauty backlash is indeed absolutely necessary for the power structure’s survival.
Women work hard—twice as hard as men.
All over the world, and for longer than records have been kept, that has been true. Historian Rosalind Miles points out that in prehistoric societies, “the labours of early women were exacting, incessant, varied and hard. If a catalogue of primitive labour were made, women would be found doing five things where men did one.” In modern tribal societies, she adds, “working unceasingly during the daylight hours, women regularly produce as much as eighty per cent of the tribe’s total food intake, on a daily basis . . . male members were and are doing only one-fifth of the work necessary for the group to survive, while the other four-fifths is carried out entirely by women.” In seventeenth-century