In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Category: Beauty

Hair Politics

Erin Aubry Kaplan writes a very good column in the LA Times about the racial politics of hair. Her point is fairly simple:

Denial is still at the core of black hair fashion, which in turn is at the still-unstable core of black identity and acceptability in the United States in 2006. Although braids, dreadlocks and other natural black hairstyles have become more visible, perms, weaves and extensions for black women have become ubiquitous.

In short, the debate about the best choices for “black hair,” always charged, is flaring up again. A Louisiana sheriff said last week that anyone on the streets in dreadlocks “can expect to be getting a visit from a sheriff’s deputy” because a murder suspect answering that description remained at large. In April, Susan L. Taylor, the iconic editorial director of Essence magazine, canceled a campus speech when she discovered the college forbids its students to wear “unusual” hairstyles — including braids, which are Taylor’s signature look. This was noteworthy because the college was Hampton University, one of the nation’s oldest historically black campuses. Then it was discovered that Black Enterprise magazine had a similar ban for student interns.

The message is clear. If blacks want to have a chance in the increasingly unforgiving corporate world, they will have to shave off their edges — starting with their hair. To Taylor and to many others, including me, such a message implies a false choice between assimilation and self-affirmation. What looks like practicality is, in fact, more denial.

What’s troubling is that, by being forced to change their hair, black people once again are being forced to shoulder the burden of proof: We’re not as fearsome as we look. It’s up to us to mitigate our dark skin and ethnic features by framing them with hair that’s as neat and unethnic as possible.

Read her whole op/ed. The most interesting thing, though, has been to see how white people respond to her fairly reasonable assertions. Via punkassblog, we find these comments over at Kevin Drum’s place:

Read More…Read More…

Fat Chance

Will we ever see an article about fat women and widening beauty standards that doesn’t feel the paternalistic need to mention all the health issues associated with obesity (because the fat girls might not know)?

I’d rather just focus on Mo’nique:

“I hope that when women walk away from the show … they sleep better at night and wake up feeling better about themselves,” Mo’Nique told the Post. “If the media never ever says, ‘We think fat people are beautiful,’ so what? We don’t need their approval. Now you be a fat man, a gay man, a black woman, a white woman — whomever you are — when you say goodnight, it’s like, ‘Oh! You know what, I’m OK.'”

…

She told the Post that she wished celebrities like recently booted “View” co-host Star Jones, who is rumored to have had weight-loss surgery, would return to the “F.A.T girl” fold. (FYI: Oprah, Queen Latifah, Camryn Manheim and Rosie O’Donnell are also deemed “F.A.T.” by Mo’Nique.) “What I say to those beautiful women is, come on back! Be healthy, but come on home! Don’t be afraid of that big juicy steak with that baked potato and sour cream, baby, on top of it! That is heaven!”

Sounds good to me. And now I want a steak…

Jealous?

You should be, because I was in Santorini this weekend, and it was unbelievable. So beautiful. Of course, now I’m broke and will be staying in my little village for the rest of the month, but it was worth it. For example:

oia
Oia

More below the fold, and even more here.

Read More…Read More…

The Unattainable

In the comments to Jill’s post on tanning beds, Marian posted the following comment (excerpt):

What is it with tanning anyway? It is a beauty-standard and competitiveness thing with many women. I remember in high school after spring break, the ultimate insult was to be told, “You’re not tan!” I was never as tan as my classmates after a Florida trip (combination of fair skin and strict Mom making me wear SPF 30 instead of the popular tanning oil), and certain snobby types would always let me know it. Girls would sit out in the sun for hours a day, all summer, just to be told, “Oh, you’re tan” and to feel beautiful. I used to cry at bad weather in the summer and on breaks, just because I couldn’t tan, and people might notice.

Where did this trend come from? I’d be interested to research it.

My understanding is that this dates back to the 1920s, when women’s clothing became much skimpier, and a tan was a sign that not only were you brave enough to bare all, you were also wealthy enough to have the time to get tan (and the ability to travel to places where tanning was possible year-round). Prior to that, women of the fashionable classes were expected to stay indoors and shield themselves from the sun so that they did not resemble those from the lower classes who toiled in the field.

Like any beauty standard, the tan in the US (at least among white people; the stratification of skin color and status in the black community is a whole ‘nother ball of wax that I don’t feel qualified to comment on) is associated with the upper classes and a surfeit of leisure time. Therefore, it is unattainable for many, especially in the winter. Same thing with thinness and fitness — prized because they take a lot of work and set one apart from the lumpen masses.

Read More…Read More…

What’s Thinner Than a Supermodel But Easier to Talk To?

This phone, according to their ad campaign (yes, the post title is a direct quote). Because “thinner than a supermodel” means that the phone is hot, because skinny things are always pretty. But we all know that hot-girl supermodels are dumb, and this phone is not dumb, so it’s easier to talk to than those model-types.

Pitch point: Skinny, hot. Skinny women, stupid. Skinny phone, buy it.

I’d like to say that I just found the dumbest advertisement of the day, but I think Amanda beat me to it.

Hello, Sunshine!

Or not, as the feds are attempting to regulate tanning beds. Now, I think Saletan’s rhetoric is slightly over-blown (case in point: “But if you shut [tanning salons] down or lock out teenagers, be prepared to enforce a dawn-to-dusk curfew or face an epidemic of skin cancer. If you liked back-alley abortions, you’ll love backyard tanning”), but I generally agree with him that this is a silly campaign. Yes, tanning is a health issue, but I think at some point you have to just allow people to do things that bring them pleasure, even if those things are bad for them. Most people know that tanning is bad for them, and they choose to do it anyway. I know it’s bad for me, and I’ll still be sitting out in the sun all summer, and chances are I will not reapply my sunscreen as often as directed. You can argue that perhaps people don’t fully understand just how bad tanning is for you, and I’d agree. But the solution isn’t to outlaw it, as some groups have advocated.

Are stricter warnings on tanning beds in order? Maybe, but doesn’t Congress have better things to do than this? Are stricter warnings really going to deter the 17-year-old who wants to look good for prom, or the 30-year-old who wants to establish a base tan before going on vacation? Probably not. The American Medical Association wants to impose an age requirement on tanning beds, disallowing anyone under 18 from using them. Eighteen, to me, seems a little old. Sixteen might be more reasonable — if we’re trusting kids to get behind the wheel of a car, it seems to me that we should be able to let them decide whether or not to bake themselves in a tanning bed.

Mostly, though, I just think that this is a waste of time. There are only so many stupid choices that you can regulate, and I’m not sure that tanning is really in need of federal supervision. And regulatory attempts like this one differ from things like smoking bans because they’re only affecting the individuals who choose to partake in unhealthy behavior. That is, smoking bans protect the general public from secondhand smoke that they are forced to inhale simply by virtue of being out at a bar or restaurant. Bans on tanning don’t protect people from the actions of others; they seek to protect people from themselves. And it all strikes me as far too over-reaching. Thoughts?