Tail, Part II

[Today's essay rapidly outgrew its original incarnation as a response to the many excellent comments on yesterday’s post about the “real” women in the current Dove ad campaign. It doesn’t say anything new, but it’s a marginally better essay. Cuz it’s longer!]

When strolling down the avenue--which avenue, by capitalist mandate, is entirely papered over like some sadistic Cristo installation with glossy hot young airbrushed babes humping whatever it is they're trying to sell you (or humping each other; check out that one on the right)--it’s all right, I guess, to see a different girl once in a while, just to break up the monotony. But it is rash to assume that because the girl doesn’t look like a junkie skeleton with tits that the ad agency has landed some momentous blow for women’s “empowerment.”

Or even a trifling blow. These Dove girls are still sex objects. That they are not professional models only magnifies the pathos. I invite you to inspect the photos in closer detail. Observe the body language. In their attempts to project “empowerment” they all look self-conscious and awkward. And why shouldn’t they? They’ve been posed in their fucking underwear by some fashion choreographer as though they are each wearing a single invisible stiletto pump on one cocked foot. Ouch.

As “radical” as it seems that they have used images of awkward pretty girls rather than of sophisticated, haggard drug addicts with lips like raw liver, Dove has not dismantled patriarchy. No. What they’ve done is, they’ve sold butt cream.

Check it out: in our society, a chick in her underwear, regardless of body mass, exists for one of two purposes: to make money for some male-dominated butt-cream entity, or for the pleasure of the male voyeur. Cosmetics companies can set themselves up as dispensers of self-esteem, they can even tell you that pictures of size 10 women in underwear are empowering you, but they are fucking lying in order to sell you stuff. That’s because in our society all women are sex objects, whether they agree to it or not, until they are too old to make money or excite boners when shown in their underwear, and then god help’em.

What normal-sized women--by whom I mean those gals whose weight-dot on the bell curve falls somewhere northeast of “anorexic”-- what they appear to be responding to in these ads is the slender possibility, the faint flicker of hope, that at last the beauty standard might actually relax sufficiently to include them.

On the surface, a move toward a more inclusive, “healthy” beauty standard seems a reasonable request. But gaze, if you dare, below the surface, where patriarchy’s greasy gears are relentlessly churning out their ever more sadistic tools of oppression. On the wall, carved in stone lo these past few millennia, is the company motto. It says "Normal Can Never Be Beautiful." Beauty, by definition, is extraordinary, rare, and conspicuous.

The desperate desire to be beautiful, based on the lie that beauty is attainable, is the result of patriarchal mind-control. Here’s what the mind-control says: the only way a woman can really attain power is through her ability to stimulate desire and/or envy in total strangers, traits that are commonly thought of as “beauty.”  Beauty makes people hire you and love you and invite you and it gets you more stuff.  Beauty = power. And how do we measure beauty?

You are beautiful if you look like someone who sells butt cream.

But a size 10 can’t sell butt cream unless she’s Oprah, so naturally she is anxious that the rules change so she can get a piece of the action. But even if she succeeds, and size 10 becomes the new size 2, all she will have won is the opportunity to be even more grossly objectified. And the opportunity to buy more butt-cream. She will not be a fully-realized human being. She will not have achieved personal soveriegnty. She will not be unrapeable. She will not escape pressure to "smile!" or be “feminine” or have cosmetic surgery or buy softcore porn costumes from Victoria’s Secret. And for damn sure she’ll still be cleaning 8 out of 10 of the nation’s toilets.

Beauty standards come and beauty standards go, but one thing is constant: women are the sex class.

Rise up! Reject the beauty mandate!

Comments

[Erin]

Twisty, you are my favorite invisible gentleman farmer/spinster aunt. Hands down favorite.

Yay for you. Fab post. (what Erin said)

[curiousgirl]

Since these ads have appeared, wallpapering every Manhattan street corner, I have heard nothing but derision about them. From men? No, I try not to talk to to many men outside of a select few, so, no, though I'm sure that exists, that is not what I'm talking about.

From women.

"Good!" you say? "Great! These women know patriachal oppression when they see it!" (I mean, they should, since most of them were in my womyn's studies classes in college.)

But you'd be sorely mistaken. No, many normal size women I know are offended because women with bodies like that should not be seen in public in thier underwear. They'll say "I mean, I know I'd look like that too. But if that was my body, I wouldn't wear a bikini to the beach, right?" How virtuous of my lovely, young pretty, normal looking friends not to subject us all to thier chubby stomachs at the beach.

Oh, well.

Personally, the main thing that I've learned from these ads is that everybody looks good airbrushed and windblown.

Thanks, Twisty, for your razor sharp wit and heat-seeking-missile of an intellect.

[Sylvanite]

Sigh. I'm smaller than a size 10 and I've noticed that you can never be "flawless" enough to not be punished by some men for being an insufficiently delectable piece of eye candy. I'm certainly no model (all the women in the Dove ad are prettier than I am!), but I resent the hell out of being made to feel bad about stuff that's nothing more than my genetic inheritance. Guys, if I'm not to your taste, I'm not obligated to be, so spare me your comments implying that I'm supposed to be perfect for all men's gazes.

Anyways, why aren't men put under this pressure? It's astounding to me what men can get away with, looks-wise. I'm not suggesting that men be pressured into neurosis. I would just like for everybody to have the ability to be free of body-image neuroses. Oh, well.

[dorothy]

Amen, sister. Amen.

I have been following this brouhaha from its inception. I've read a lot, but this is the first piece that really nails it.

Thank you!

[Travelling Punk]

Shit, how do you come up with this stuff! Ace post.

[Finn]

>>Shit, how do you come up with this stuff!<<

I don't think it would be that hard to write Twisty's column. You start with the blame and you work backward.

;-)

Ok.

So, I ask you, how many men do you think are buying Dove products becuase of this ad?

The target is women.

If there were no patriarchy, wouldn't people still find reasons to find one another attractive? Isn't it possible that in a patriarchy-free world, large people will be less attractive than thin people?

I'm asking. Seriously.

[Sunya Harjis]

Oh Twisty, you're all stick and no carrot. I had a similar crisis recently: I complained for hours about how women were very very objectified and men were not at all objectified.

But
I
was
wrong!

There are articles on male anorexia in Maxim; there are waxing and bleaching tips in GQ; there are hundreds of sweet-ass Chelsea boys pitching booze, shaving cream, and $5000 suits. There are plenty of deliciously sexual-objectified gay men and an entire genre of gay porn made by women for women and featuring hot guys, their cocks, and precious little else. There are standards of male beauty. There are "good-looking" guys.

What I'm drawing a blank on is how the culture of male beauty fails to chew up men the way the female beauty myth chews up women. One answer I've come up with is that straight women are insufficiently shallow consumers of beauty: there are too many other things that are important to consider before fucking, dating, or marrying a man. Men are sexually liberated, physically stronger, and easily gratified by default: they don't need to know if their one-night fuckbuddy is stable, safe, and ready to go the distance.

One moves straightaway to the realm of fantasy to examine the matter further. One thing about women's sexual fantasies - if I can make a generalization about this particularly wild area of the feminine soul - is that the don't not objectify men, if you catch my drift. The parade of faceless lovers is not uncommon; so is the literal fuck machine. Removed from the constraints of social, cultural, and physical bondage, women are free to judge on looks alone.

More interesting still is how ready women are to judge OTHER WOMEN by their looks. Are men as ready to judge other men in the same way? Does the Abercrombie revolution point hither?

[Twisty]

I don't think it would be that hard to write Twisty's column.

Joe Finn, you simply MUST stop showering me with compliments! You're right, though, about ads in general making you fantasize until you have to resolve the tension with a purchase. It doesn't just stop there, though. I don't know about men, but women for certain internalize imagery like Penthouse or this Dove crap. Because these are women that our culture says are good-lookin, and we know that our purpose in life is to be as good-lookin as possible, so these are the chicks to emulate. Remember when everybody had the Jennifer Aniston haircut?

[Twisty]

Sunya, I am somewhat puzzled by your assumptions that I am (a) having a crisis and (b) arguing that men are never objectified. So, no carrot for you!

[Mistress]

But . . . . . I'm a dyke & I'm a shallow consumer of beauty. Hmm . . . .

As for male standards of beauty, my big, hairy, weightlifting, metalhead male roommate exfoliates & uses pore refining cream. So who knows what your male friends are hiding in their bathrooms?

Hating yourself isn't an exclusively female thing.

[allison]

While the target of these ads may be women, it's hard to deny that men all over haven't noticed them and subsequently found it necessary to grace the rest of us with their opinions.

While some of the women I've talked to about these ads have actually claimed it struck an emotional chord with them, I just don't understand it. I would hope that in a patriarchy-free world, we wouldn't all be scrambling to be labeled "beautiful."

[Ron Sullivan]

It's not whether we're "beautiful" or not. It's that if we aren't "beautiful," nothing else we are matters.

I suppose you can argue that if we are "beautiful," nothing else we are has to matter, eitheralsohowevertoo.

[Finn]

>Joe Finn, you simply MUST stop showering me with compliments!Because these are women that our culture says are good-lookin, and we know that our purpose in life is to be as good-lookin as possible, so these are the chicks to emulate. Remember when everybody had the Jennifer Aniston haircut?<

I get your point (and I liked the Aniston do, too), but I don't think that the "purpose in life is to be as good-lookin as possible" part is the only motivator. It would be much simpler if we could chalk it all up to one societal force doing all the pulling, but I think there's more going on there.

Society issues more messages than just those about being good-looking and that's where I think your point weakens somewhat. Don't we also get the message that we are more attractive to others, generally, by the level of respect we generate from others? The reason I read your blog, for example, is because I respect the quality of writing and creativity you pour into it. More on that later.

We were talking about the Dove ad, so I'll try to stay on topic.

I can agree that standards of beauty are influenced by the patriarchal society. Sure, they are. But, as our society changes, and the patriarchal tendencies level off, I wouldn't predict any less of an obsession with beauty. It may change its flavor, but it will be just as strong a motivator. Who will we blame then?

I would submit that human nature being what it is, regardless of which gender has a larger influence, there will always be measurements of beauty, respect, intelligence, etc. And, most of those standards will seem unacceptable to those of us who are less endowed.

[Kyria]

In New York the pictures are all over. I must say I enjoy looking at them, much (though not perhaps quite as much) as I enjoy looking at pictures of young Bertie.

I can't say, however, that this translates at all into a desire to run out and buy butt cream.

[Steph]

One thing I didn't like about the ad campaign is how it overwhelmed the urban space. I first encountered it visiting San Francisco, and I'm waiting for it to come to Canada and assault me on the transit system here.

I felt like Dove was hailing me to congratulate them on their defiance of beauty standards when all the while trying to sell me some butt cream that only reinforces the standards they purport to be defying.

Sure it was nice to see women who eat on the ads (and women of different skin colours) because it doesn't happen that often, but it's hardly radical stuff and I'm not about to congratulate them for trying to make money by being a bit creative.

Not developing butt creams to treat made-up beauty concerns...now that would be radical.

[Jim McCulloch]

"...there will always be measurements of beauty, respect, intelligence, etc. And, most of those standards will seem unacceptable to those of us who are less endowed."

A pessimistic view. Being a utopian, I guess, as well as a Buddhist, I hope that will not always be true. I remember reading somewhere, recently, of a psychology experiment in which the subjects are found to be more dissatisfied with the physical attractiveness of the people in their real personal lives, after an immersion in pictures, or seeing tv shows (I forget the important details of the experiment, which sort of screws what I am trying to say, but, hey) of beautiful people.

In other words, we have just as skewed a vision of personal attractiveness as we do of the prevalence of murder. Most Americans have not personally seen a murder. But most have witnessed thousands on tv.

Go to your local Walmart (which someone, making my point, has called the ugly people's store) and you will see real people, but not the people we have held up to as as models, every day, over and over again, of what we want and what we should be by the Economy, (or the Patriarchy, assuming a difference).

[nazrafel]

Though I must say, I have this driving need buy/adopt a cute puppy right now!

[deja pseu]

Yet another excellent post, Twisty! I am in awe.

A few years ago on a prominent feminist BB, the topic of Beauty=Power? came up. What I said then and still stand by is that "the only power inherent in youth and/or beauty is the power to attract and appease those who hold the REAL power."

[AB]

Eh... my main reaction to the whole Dove thing has been frustration about the dialogue not rising far above "Is this good or bad for women? Check box []A or []B."

All of which is to say, it tweaks my sore spot about how the feminist movement wants to be everywhere--and hence ends up being nowhere--all at once. (Kinda like that kid in fifth grade with perpetual ADHD.) Ever sign up for a NOW or Feminist Majority email list? Yee gods. It's like every. little. damn. thing. ends up as a *huge* deal. And after reading through a couple of days of it, all issues seem to be exactly the same size, whether it's a po-dunk golfing course in Armpit, Arkansas that won't allow women to play in a competition or it's a huge policy shift in the federal government that means millions of poor women will lose medical access.

I'm not sure exactly how to reconcile this. I mean, I think it could get dangerous to start deciding which issues are "important" (in practice, we all know which issues those would be: the ones affecting straight white middle-class women) and which ones should be shunted off to the side as unimportant. But on some level, I look at this and say, Damn. I remember the first time it clicked for me that images in advertising were horrible and sexist and fulfilled patriarchal norms. But after you've had that click--why are we feminists so intent to keep picking at that scab? I mean, are we really expecting the feminist revolution to come from advertising and cosmetic companies, anyways? (It's like expecting that wearing a Che shirt somehow is a stike against capitalism. Uh, not so much.)

Not that this is meant to be a slam on Twisty, who is amazing and insightful and the first thing I read each morning at work. If there ever was a place to write about anything and everything related to the patriarchy, a blog is certainly it. I just had such a different reaction than most people to these ads. My feminist friends kept asking, Do you think Dove is a force for good or evil with this campaign? And I kept wanting to ask, Has the movement seriously gotten to the point that this shit is still that important?

[flea]

Twisty, you might like watching this Quicktime video of Alan Cumming selling his new perfume. While you're watching it, imagine Giselle doing the exact same ad. It's interesting.

http://www.cummingthefragrance.com/commercial.html

[Steph]

AB, the reason why the discussion sticks to Dove ads and the like is because they're easy. Asking feminist questions about beauty products and advertising makes one a good liberal feminist but not an evil radical one.
(Again not a swipe at Twisty, because I firmly believe she fits into the latter camp).

It's easy to take shots at Dove, it's hard to take shots and ACTION at capitalism and patriarchy and all its evil effects. It's also really hard to live by those feminist ideals in a patriarchal world. I struggle with it every day and sitting in my comfy chair with my comfy life, I'm pretty sure I'm not doing as good a job fighting the patriarchy as I could be.

[Lauren]

When I go to the beach, I put my size 8/10 body into a teensy bikini. Why? If I'm going to burn (or tan, as whitey calls it), I might as well get everything.

And seriously, if anyone wants a body image check, go to the swimming pool at noon on any weekday. Check out the moms and kids in all their glory. Nobody to impress and nobody cares. It's lovely.

[tarte suite]

Man, I loathed the Jennifer Aniston haircut.

Sunya says, "What I'm drawing a blank on is how the culture of male beauty fails to chew up men the way the female beauty myth chews up women."

Face it, the beauty industry is driven by the kind of misogyny that (unfortunately) bonds men, and echoes the homosocial (and homosexual) underpinnings of patriarchy.

One of the true signifiers of the patriarchy is how maleness, even mitigated by gayness, continues to arbitrate good taste in terms of beauty. Why do we have fresh-faced, fine-pressed gay men telling straight men and women how to look fine? Because in many ways gay men are the ones who know how to DO the patriarchy best, who know how to orchestrate the heteronormative look best. Gay men are the ones who have heretofore refused the refusal chosen by so many dykes, because gay men believe in and crave that power, that seemingly timeless, brutal, shiny power, like so many Peter Pans on Brooks Brothers and crystal meth.

[Elaine]

About the men being objectified thing:

Think about your (or most people's) initial reaction to hot studded beefcake-ism. It's to laugh, isn't it? And you know why? It's because objectification is a feminine thing and seeing men portrayed as something feminine is HILARIOUS to some people.

While the effeminite metrosexual might be trendy, its only peripheral and not ingrained in our preconceptions of gender. Also I think the men that are more inclined to care about their appearance is more of a class thing. When you don't have the money to tend to your appearance, those who do are "faggy."