A plea to the people of Canada from the Society of Friends at Coldstream, Ontario Book

A very popular book in the (relatively) modern feminism movement, I have mixed thoughts on this. It's a book I wanted to like but couldn't.

Wolf's basic premise is that "beauty" is an artifical concept that is used systematically to oppress women primarily for political purposes. The book is replete with figures, statistics, citations (a total of 268), and quotes, which are distributed throughout six sections or topics: work, culture, religion, sex, hunger, and violence. In each section, Wolf attempts to show how the concept of "beauty" has historically kept women in positions of inferiority and how it continues to do so. In general, I agree that political oppression does exist and that patriarchal and religious structures are a root cause of this. I also agree that the image of the "ideal" woman that dominates in popular culture is problematic and troubling in multiple ways. But I cannot follow Wolf's steps to reach her over-reaching conclusion.

First, and not necessarily foremost, the information offered by Wolf paints a dismal portrait of how women have been objectified, lied to, and exploited for centuries. I completely get that. But the information appears clumsily pasted together, inconsistently presented, and at times set forth with no citations at all. There were many instances where I wondered if a sentence or phrase in quotations marks was a quote from a source or from Wolf herself. This is inexcusable in any scholarly work, and so in this case it is an additional reason why I don't consider The Beauty Myth a scholarly work. Rather, it is more suitable as a compilation of the research of others. Unfortunately, what Wolf clearly provides as supporting documentation or research is almost exclusively that--supporting documentation. There are scant contrary voices here. We are presented with Wolf's side and only her side. There's little for Wolf to actually dispute because, well, everything proves her thesis. Everything.

Second, I found little in the way of actual argumentation here. What we see are statistics, anecdotes, and statements from others that state how women have been treated in various circumstances, and these are quite alarming and insidious. But she doesn't adequately connect the how to the why. Somehow, broad and general declarations are supposed to get us there, and there are few attempts to address other possible causes.

Third, the problem may not so much be "beauty," but simply the nature of capitalism. At times, Wolf railed against the marketplace and I had the expectation that she was going to channel Karl Marx. Surprisingly, she did not. But the nature of capitalism is that some thrive while others whither. Advertising preys upon the consumer in every avenue of life just as clothing and cosmetics manufacturers use ads to engender desire in their target audience. One "needs" an i-Phone just as a woman "needs" another shade of rouge. This is nothing new. Why must Wolf attribute it to something more grandiose and far-reaching than the simple drive for profit using psychology as a lever and insecurity as a fulcrum? We see this in pharmaceuticals, hair-growth products, gym equipment, auto commercials, herpes medicine, and presidential campaigns. There's no mystery here.

As a whole, it's as if this development of the "beauty myth" were another necessary progression in history, as naturally as it seemed to follow from what preceded it. Wolf posits at one point that the artificial concept of beauty is perpetuated and transformed actively and institutionally, as if there is a grand conspiracy to imprison women by creating an idea of "beauty" as a weapon. But she doesn't satisfy the need (or perhaps just my need) for an explanation. Her theory does imply a conspiracy: a worldwide conspiracy by folks who are positively brilliant and to whom women must be completely transparent and malleable.

On an unrelated point, I was annoyed near the start by the hasty denial of any relationship between evolution or sexual selection and beauty; it was given one whole paragraph. Instead, Wolf says that beauty is subjective and provides a few examples from diverse cultures to make the point. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," as they say. This is true enough. But in the end, Wolf says, all women are beautiful. Thus, beauty is ultimately a nullity. It means nothing. But Wolf doesn't mind using flattery to make a point.

What astounds me is that in all this discussion of beauty, women, and sexuality, there's virtually no examination of the relevance of gender or homosexuality (check the index--it's mentioned on two pages). Perhaps she wanted to offend her 1991 audience with some pointed statements, but not too much. There's no genuine reflection on what the terms "masculine" or "feminine" really mean, although they're used casually enough as if their meaning is beyond question. And she also attempts to link the practice of plastic surgery to eugenics performed by the Nazis. I found this to be absurd. It's also worrying that Wolf subsequently admitted to Time magazine that some of her statistics in the book were overstated and that it appears she removed some of those figures from later editions.

Although I've used much of this space to criticize Wolf's book, I also think that its examples of open and shameless brutality, psychological as well as physical, against women are enlightening and mortifying. In spite of the book's shortcomings, it raises pointed concerns that demand (and now receive) serious attention. For that, Wolf deserves kudos.