« Shed a Tear for the Lobbyists | Main | Love the Cook, Hate the Food »
June 30, 2007
We Can Rebuild Her, Make Her Thinner, Bustier, More Beautiful...
Mulling over beauty standards, Peter Suderman asks:
Concerns about the buying and selling of beauty derive in large part from our longstanding concern for anything that isn’t “natural.” Just as we worry about despoiling nature, we fret over changes made to the human body, always with the idea that whatever is natural is “good.” But why should we be forced to live with what nature assigns us? Why be stuck with bodies that don’t please us or others, and why shouldn’t anyone with the means be able to purchase something new, more satisfying, more functional? When more vital parts of our bodies fail, we have no problem with replacing or fixing them—why should cosmetic improvements be any different?
There's a big difference between purchasing a body that is more functional and buying one that is more aesthetically pleasing. If the cartilage in your knee has worn out till it's mere bone scraping against bone, it's a real blessing that our society has developed the sort of reconstructive technologies that will restore your mobility and reduce your pain level. Excruciating pain when you walk is an objective bad, and worth resources to fix.
But crow's feet are not an objective bad. Nor is a healthy weight that doesn't translate into a washboard stomach. Individuals fight against those physical tendencies not because they render their bodies less functional, but because they are bombarded with cultural messages suggesting they're ugly. And so the question isn't whether people should be able to improve their bodies, but whether the constant message that they must fight the aging process, or conform to a difficult body ideal, is a good thing. In other words: Purchasing beauty isn't on trial, or shouldn't be. It's the forces that generate the aching desire to tone up and slim down and grow younger that should be questioned. Those desires, particularly in their contemporary guise, aren't necessarily natural, and I'm hard pressed to believe they're making many people happier.
June 30, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Not to mention the fact that insofar as beauty is a purchasable commodity, for the most part only the privileged classes will be able to buy it. The result: ever-increasing levels of inequality, as the poor find themselves losing ground in the race for beauty (just as they are falling behind on so many other fronts, from wages to education to health, and on and on).
The widening beauty gap between the classes is, in turn, likely to translate into a widening economic gap as well. In the Times article sited by Suderman, many of the women spending $1,000+ per week on beauty regimes claim that they do it to succeed in the workplace, because they’re judged harshly, not promoted, not given raises, etc., if they don’t look “young” and “fresh.” They’re probably exaggerating to some extent, but I don’t doubt there’s a lot of truth to what they say.
Posted by: Kathy G. | Jun 30, 2007 6:28:57 PM
I always take the "culture oppression" argument with a grain of salt. It is the conventional wisdom that "sexy" magazine ads, celebrities, and a looks-obsessed media are the source of why we are so unhappy with our appearance. I think we give that notion too much credit. Brad Pitt doesn't make me self-conscious; the muscular, toned guys at the gym do. Likewise, the army of girls with flat stomachs, perfect tans, and perfect blonde hair bouncing around college campuses are probably the true source of the average girl's self-loathing.
Posted by: Jason | Jun 30, 2007 7:06:28 PM
Those desires, particularly in their contemporary guise, aren't necessarily natural
Too nice waffles make this irrefutable, but I'd say your basic premise is dubious. In nature we certainly see animals competing for mates using displays of color and beauty, or displays of audio cues, whistles and songs. We all see that animals lower on the pecking order are in fact "pecked" or otherwise visually detectable from those higher on the pecking order.
Healthy for us in their contemporary guise? Probably not. Many people want to pathologize human behavior though, especially behaviors that they "judge" not to be normal, or good for you.
Ignorance and fear abounds and it is all too easy to reach to your authoritarian instincts.
Posted by: jerry | Jun 30, 2007 7:34:57 PM
So, Jerry, are "authoritarian instincts" better or worse than those you assert are responsible for contemporary standards of personal appearance?
Posted by: idlemind | Jun 30, 2007 7:50:32 PM
So, Jerry, are "authoritarian instincts" better or worse than those you assert are responsible for contemporary standards of personal appearance?
Posted by: idlemind | Jun 30, 2007 7:50:48 PM
Most people in this country need to tone up and slim down, myself included.
"Those desires, particularly in their contemporary guise, aren't necessarily natural, and I'm hard pressed to believe they're making many people happier."
But many doctors argue that appearance is a good sign of how well you are taking care of yourself. People who taking care of themselves look younger than their chronological age.
"Nor is a healthy weight that doesn't translate into a washboard stomach."
That idea that a healthy weight could equal a few extra pounds was debunked about a year ago. Previous studies had used a sampling method that included people who were too thin already from chronic disease. This is very similar to a revision that took place on the issue of moderate drinking vs. abstaining. It turned out on closer scrutiny that the abstainers were often ex-alcoholics who ended up having related health problems, thus giving the impression that moderate drinkers were healthier.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "washboard stomach" but abdominal fat is associated with other health problems. Having a strong core is essential for mobility and balance.
The thing is, there are people who live healthier lifestyles and look it. Visit Italy if you want to see what I am talking about.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 30, 2007 7:57:57 PM
Steve, even if I don't want to get into your absurdly narrow view of weight, how does having huge silicone-filled boobs benefit health? A lack of wrinkles? Missing pieces of toes? Or even liposuction?
Our culture gets to decide if it hurts people who don't comply with beauty standards, it even gets to decide what those standards are. We don't get to decide whether people's lives are shortened and made less pleasant by heart attacks. But we've created dire consequences - crippling shame, painful mutilation, starvation - for things that wouldn't otherwise have them. It's self-defeating and misanthropic. We should stop it.
Posted by: Sara | Jun 30, 2007 8:18:14 PM
It's the forces that generate the aching desire to tone up and slim down and grow younger that should be questioned. Those desires, particularly in their contemporary guise, aren't necessarily natural, and I'm hard pressed to believe they're making many people happier.
Leaving aside the mysterious qualification "particularly in their contemporary guise," there's pretty strong evidence that the desire to appear youthful and sexually attractive is "natural," especially for women. For well-understood evolutionary reasons, men, especially, tend to prefer younger and more attractive partners for sex, and women who are in the market for a husband or boyfriend or sex partner, or who just enjoy the attentions of men, are likely to respond accordingly.
Culture may amplify or distort these natural desires somewhat, but it didn't create them. The basic reason female movie stars tend to be young, slim and pretty rather than old, fat and ugly is that people just naturally prefer looking at the former to looking at the latter.
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 30, 2007 8:28:05 PM
It's unethical reporters like Ken Silverstein who give us journalists a BAD NAME !!!
Posted by: Judy Miller | Jun 30, 2007 8:31:30 PM
Ezra, Ezra, Ezra, what will we do with you? The rich really are more beautiful than the rest of us, as can be seen on
http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/
Would you want Sarah Jessica Parker to have her original nose? I didn't think so.
Posted by: FS | Jun 30, 2007 9:03:33 PM
Beauty is a big deal in ways that are unavoidable but not entirely healthy even without the extra trouble added by making it a commodity. Our culture suffers from a too narrow view of beauty, which we soak up in large part from commercialization (ads, movies, models, etc.) before we even know it. It's very hard to work against it, even if you try to, which most people don't. It would be better for all concerned if a greater variety of kinds and styles of beauty were currently appreciated. Look at Rubens' figures, for example ...
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 30, 2007 9:35:33 PM
The widening beauty gap between the classes is, in turn, likely to translate into a widening economic gap as well.
I propose we force everyone to have surgery so we all look equally ugly. Equality is the primacy, right?
Posted by: Jason | Jun 30, 2007 11:12:47 PM
So, Jerry, are "authoritarian instincts" better or worse than those you assert are responsible for contemporary standards of personal appearance?
Uh? Are you serious cat?
Your instinct as you call it to say to want to look healthy and look for healthy people affects you and your life. Your authoritarian instinct and need to oppress others that disagree with your philosophy affects well, everyone that gets close to you.
Your right to see, think, and speak should never be taken away, regardless of how ugly your thoughts appear to be to others. Your right to swing your authoritarian instincts around ends at my nose. Sooner I would hope.
There is nothing liberal or progressive about the speech and thought police.
Jason, it's not just the widening beauty gap, as I am sure you recognize there is danger of a widening intellectual gap. Harrison Bergeron, written by a liberal that called himself a socialist, told us of what we must do. Write idlemind?
(P.S. idlemind, step away from the thought police and your mind could be filled with all sorts of thoughts!)
Posted by: jerry | Jul 1, 2007 1:26:36 AM
There's a big difference between purchasing a body that is more functional and buying one that is more aesthetically pleasing.
Seriously Ez, I think you should speak to some plastic surgeons and psychiatrists before making such a sweeping generalization.
Posted by: jerry | Jul 1, 2007 1:29:17 AM
Here's some real beauty for ya'll:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcuk_AKNmUg
Posted by: lorri | Jul 1, 2007 5:49:31 AM
But crow's feet are not an objective bad. Nor is a healthy weight that doesn't translate into a washboard stomach.
Uh-huh. Call me back when you're 40.
Look, I'm not in favor of life threatening surgery to get bigger boobs, a nicer nose, a tighter ass, or what have you. But that's me. I know a woman who had her breasts done and is a more confident woman because of it, so who can say? It's wonderful that some can try to say "I think this whole beauty tyranny is terrible and doesn't mean anything" but I tend to find that such logic comes more from the good looking than not. I'm in my forties and frankly, I'm quite pleased that I don't really look a day over 35 (30 if I'm trying hard). Do I want a better body than I have now? Sure; once upon a time I was young and thin and pretty and I miss it - youth is like that, and only lately do I more fully understand the part about how it's wasted on the young. Would I have some sort of body sculpting surgery to get there? not yet, but I think about it. I think it's easy, too easy, to assail the beauty industry as Ezra's doing (and Sanpete as well). People buy into this selling of insecurities because... well, they're not blind. And while our standards of beauty are in some ways much too narrow, that's not going to eliminate the notion that there is one. We can adjust it - and in many ways, it has changed considerably from when I was a real wee-boy - but we are likely to have one, and consequently, we will have people chasing it.
Posted by: weboy | Jul 1, 2007 7:28:41 AM
"But that's me. I know a woman who had her breasts done and is a more confident woman because of it, so who can say?"
That's kind of sad.
Posted by: jinbaltimore | Jul 1, 2007 8:03:09 AM
This would be a stronger argument if being more attractive didn't give you real benefits in this society.
It can make your life better in a very real way, and it's really pathetic that you all judge people for wanting that. People have a right to make choices about their own body, and they have the right to to do with without carping from Ezra Klein, Jinbaltimore, or Sanpete.
Posted by: soullite | Jul 1, 2007 8:38:02 AM
Well well well, don't we think a LOT of ourselves, Ezra? I just have to say, go fuck yourself, you authoritarian asshole! If I want to attach antlers to my head because I find them aesthetically pleasing, IT'S MY GODDAMN BUSINESS!! I get so sick of people like you and your wiser-than-thou attitude. I'm willing to bet you're not very attractive. (I really want to slap this neo-nazi Ezra Klein in the face right now; her snooty attitude is sickening!)
Posted by: J R | Jul 1, 2007 10:26:25 AM
I’m getting a little tired of the way the very decent and humane arguments made by Ezra and others on this thread have been distorted in ways that positively reek of bad faith.
First of all, neither I nor Ezra nor anyone else is suggesting here that we forcibly prevent folks from undergoing plastic surgery or, in the name of beauty, doing whatever the hell else they want to their own bodies. But what other folks on this thread seem to be arguing is not only that everyone has an inalienable right to all the plastic surgery and beauty treatments they could possibly afford, but that no one else has a right to question or critically examine them or their choices. And that, my friends, is bullshit.
You may ask, why should I care if someone decides to spend every cent of their disposable income and every second of their spare time on cosmetic surgery and beauty treatments? Well, that’s simple: it’s what economists call an externality. Economic transactions tend to have effects on people other than the parties directly involved in the transaction. Every woman who gets a facelift helps, in her own small way, to strengthen the developing social norm that women aren’t allowed to look their age anymore. This hurts women as a class, especially those women who could never afford such surgical interventions in the first place. Added together, seemingly trivial individual choices can have profound social effects, and the choice to undergo cosmetic surgery is one of them. (Btw, if you’re interested in a really neat social science analysis of the dramatic unintended social consequences of apparently trivial individual choices, see Thomas Schalling’s classic work Micromotives and Macrobehavior)
Also, think about the profound wastefulness, in terms of time and money, that cosmetic surgery entails. Just imagine all the great things that could be done with that money if, through taxes or donations, it was used to alleviate poverty or invest in education and infrastructure or reduce global warming. Also, on the individual level, wouldn’t it be healthier, more productive, and/or more pleasurable to spend the time and money participating in political and humanitarian causes, or in educating yourself, or in just doing fun stuff (like, oh . . . flying kites)? In short, money spent on beauty has an opportunity cost. And the outrageous amounts being spent these days are, in my view, extremely socially wasteful.
Obviously, all of us spend time and money on our physical appearance that (might) arguably be put to better use somewhere else. (I personally spend far more money on shoes than I would ever be willing to cop to here!). There is a line, somewhere, where acceptable crosses over into obsessive. I don’t know exactly where it lies, but I’m damn sure that those women in the Times article who spend over $1,000 *per week* (!!!) on beauty treatments have crossed it.
And this is not to try to shame the women in that article, btw. They didn’t create the beauty-obsessed environment we all live in (to paraphrase one of my favorite movies, Chinatown, it’s “the water we all swim in”), and I’m sure that many of them work in fields that judge women’s appearance very harshly. The point is not to castigate them, but to critically examine, and try to change, society’s wasteful and oppressive beauty standards.
Posted by: Kathy G. | Jul 1, 2007 11:33:34 AM
Two more points:
1. To those of you resorting to tortured evolutionary psychology arguments to justify reactionary social attitudes: you should know that most of evo psych is pseudo-scientific bullshit – little more than social Darwinism in modern garb. Here’s a great article explaining why: http://ntp.neuroscience.wisc.edu/students/student-art/panksepp6p108.pdf
Also, Natalie Angier’s wonderful book, Woman: An Intimate Geography, has great stuff about the sexism and bad science of the evo psychos.
2. The attraction to physical beauty, and the desire to be beautiful, are very human and not necessarily destructive. But the extent to which we as a society have become beauty-obsessed is dangerous and oppressive, especially for women. I mean, don’t you think we’d have a happier, healthier, more pleasurable society if people were judged by their minds, by how they treat others, by “the content of their character”? Yes, I know this sounds too sappy for words, and we will always have mean and shallow people who judge others solely by their appearance. But as a society we do have some control over what values we promote and what morals we pass on to our children. And the more we affirm non-beauty-centric values, the more we can help to build a society that is more tolerant, more humane, more egalitarian, and (this is extremely important) less sexist.
Posted by: Kathy G. | Jul 1, 2007 11:35:13 AM
So I've never found that telling people they are arguing in bad faith was an effective method of persuasion.
Every woman who gets a facelift helps, in her own small way, to strengthen the developing social norm that women aren’t allowed to look their age anymore.
It's the forces that generate the aching desire to tone up and slim down and grow younger that should be questioned.
The use of cosmetics is literally as old as human history itself. I am not sure I know the social norm that you say is developing. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
If you want to question social norms, be my guest. If you want to approach this is a sexist manner, by arguing that society is placing gendered beauty norms and roles solely on women, then not so much.
Those desires, particularly in their contemporary guise, aren't necessarily natural, and I'm hard pressed to believe they're making many people happier.
As I said earlier, I suspect that many of these desires are in fact perfectly normal and natural.
But I will also say that language that uses vague arguments like something is not natural, you suspect something is not making people happier, one type of operation is better than another, and so on, is very unpersuasive, lacks data, and seems very much like a way to castigate people for their individual judgment and choices. More data please.
And the more we affirm non-beauty-centric values To the extent that the male is acknowledged to be a visually oriented, beauty oriented creature, developing so for evolutionary purposes, and to the extent that you want to deny that, or police against that, then I don't think you stand a chance of succeeding in your effort.
Regardless, we all want to build a more tolerant, more humane, more egalitarian, and less sexist society. I certainly do all I can to pass these values on to my daughters. I suggest you can help by acknowledging biology, evolution, and the social pressures, financial, beauty, and otherwise demanded of both sexes. Otherwise, I find you skirting some very sexist issues of your own.
Posted by: jerry | Jul 1, 2007 12:34:37 PM
Posted by: DM | Jul 1, 2007 12:38:52 PM
Obviously, all of us spend time and money on our physical appearance that (might) arguably be put to better use somewhere else. (I personally spend far more money on shoes than I would ever be willing to cop to here!). There is a line, somewhere, where acceptable crosses over into obsessive. I don’t know exactly where it lies, but I’m damn sure that those women in the Times article who spend over $1,000 *per week* (!!!) on beauty treatments have crossed it.
And this is not to try to shame the women in that article, btw. They didn’t create the beauty-obsessed environment we all live in (to paraphrase one of my favorite movies, Chinatown, it’s “the water we all swim in”), and I’m sure that many of them work in fields that judge women’s appearance very harshly. The point is not to castigate them, but to critically examine, and try to change, society’s wasteful and oppressive beauty standards.
Kathy, it strikes me you want it both ways on this - blame "beauty standards" for excessive plastic surgery... but hey, gals, don't regret that facelift, or those new Manolos! That's practically a whole issue of Allure right there. :)
Either we're questioning the people who do these things - that, after all, contribute to the very absurd "beauty standards" under discussion - or we're not. Ezra's point is that something is terribly out of whack when people resort to surgery to look better or fight aging... which is a wholly convenient stance in your 20s. "The forces that generate the aching desire to tone up and slim down and grow younger" are not somehow handed down by the thought police; they come from us, from our aches, our desires, and our preferences. And some women are happier if they get a facelift, or a bust lift or liposuction. Some feel better acquiring an absurd number of shoes. And that's also true of a lot of men, we're discovering. So what? It's not that there's something wrong with wanting to look younger, it's that not all of us can see why others take it to such lengths. And that, I think, is something that we're not in a position to judge (at least not until we've walked a mile in their, er, shoes), and certainly in no position to stop.
Posted by: weboy | Jul 1, 2007 1:20:46 PM
Speaking of bad faith – Jerry, it strikes me as the essence of bad faith for you to claim, in one breath, that “evolutionary purposes” have caused males (but apparently not women) to become “beauty-oriented,” and thus, presumably, to demand beauty in their partners – and then, in the next breath, to suggest that I’m wrong to imply that “society is placing gendered beauty norms and roles solely [I would say mainly, but not solely] on women.” I mean, dude, pick one side or the other. You can argue either that society, or evolution, or what have you, places a significantly greater beauty burden on women than on men – or that it doesn’t. But don’t try to have it both ways.
And yes, no question that beauty standards are having an ever more powerful effect on men as well as women. I think this is an issue that men in the gay community especially struggle with. But don’t tell me with a straight face that hetero men are under the same scrutiny, the same burden, in terms of appearance that women are, or that they spend anywhere near as much time, effort, and money on their appearance as women do. Because if you really believe that you are clearly not living in the reality-based community.
Concerning how new beauty norms are developing – well, of course they are! Thirty years ago if you were a middle-aged woman all that was required in terms of a beauty routine was make-up and dying your hair. But now, in certain circles at least, as the Times article documents, it’s becoming the norm that you submit yourself to a nonstop regime of expensive, time-consuming, and frequently painful surgeries, injections, etc. Don’t tell me this is not a significant change!
I think there are three reasons for this change: 1) new technologies which have made available an ever-increasing array of products, treatments, and surgeries, 2) a 24/7 media environment which monitors celebrities round the clock and cruelly documents every bad hair day, every fashion misstep, every pound gained, every wrinkle acquired and 3) paradoxically, women’s rising social status. Submission to increasingly tyrannical beauty standards is, I think, the tribute that modern women are expected to pay to patriarchy. Being excessively preoccupied with, and spending excessive time on, their physical appearance is one way to keep women from pursuing activities that are far more productive. And the insecurity engendered in women by the failure to live up to unattainable beauty ideals disempowers women relative to men.
Basically, what I’m suggesting we as a society do are the following: 1) Dial it the fuck down in terms of beauty-oriented values. Spend less time granting status to beauty and more time granting status to brains, to good works, to creativity, to a whole host of other values. 2) Develop a more inclusive beauty standard, one that is more welcoming to all races and ages and to a diverse array of body types and sizes.
As I’ve said, being attracted to beautiful people and wanting to be beautiful are perfectly normal and human desires, and not necessarily destructive or harmful. The problem occurs when beauty standards and regimes become mandatory, and when society promotes only one narrow beauty ideal. Sorry to sound so Oprah-esque about it, but if women had a larger variety of beauty role models to choose from, not only will they feel better about themselves, they will avoid the huge psychic and economic costs – to themselves individually and to society as a whole -- of trying to achieve a look or body type that is unattainable
Posted by: Kathy G. | Jul 1, 2007 2:04:45 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.