Wolf/Banks Blog Post

Gracie Hall

Blog Post 9.18.12

            On Friday of this week my friend Max from back home sent me a review of Naomi Wolf’s new book, “Vagina: A New Biography”. (Can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/books/review/vagina-a-new-biography-by-naomi-wolf.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all) This was the first time I had been introduced to any of her ideas or her words, and quite frankly I was a little disappointed. The author, Toni Bentley, let us readers know that she was let down by what could have been “a very important book” because of questionable scientific methods, poor word choice, ridiculous redundancies, and failed nerves. After reading this review, I approached our weekly reading with a similar mentality. What I found, however, was that I was greatly impressed by “The Beauty Myth” and agreed with most of what I read.

            In this text Naomi Wolf states that the modern woman has been loosing the ground that was covered by the 1970’s wave of feminism. She says, “women’s collective progress has stalled” and metaphorically implies that our generation is unwilling to “light the torch”. It is with our new liberties, money, power, scope, and legal recognition that we roll over and again are suppressed by what she has coined “the beauty myth.” Shortly after releasing ourselves from the feminine mystic of domesticity we have been beat down and restrained by the beauty myth, which has been “seeking to undo psychologically and covertly all the good things that feminism did for women.” The advertisements for house products have changed to diet supplements and the youthful model has “supplanted the happy housewife”; we have fallen into the trap once again. Instead of using the power we have recently reclaimed over our bodies, we have resumed the pattern of male medical control and have starved and artificially modified ourselves.

            Naomi Wolf states that this of course, is not natural. There is no changeless, universal quantity of “beauty”. This is not a function of evolution; there is no historical or biological justification. This is instead a result of “men’s institutions and institutional power”. Wolf’s historical context claims that beauty was never really a main factor in the consideration of marriage back in the day, and that our modern ideals were only really born around the 1830’s. It has been with the modern boom of technology (which Judith Lorber told us was a man’s world) that an alternate female world with “it’s own laws, economy, religion, sexuality, education, and culture” has been constructed. Now we live in a society where there is a $33 billion dollar diet industry, a $300 million dollar cosmetic surgery industry, a $20 billion dollar cosmetics industry, and a $7 billion dollar pornography industry! We have been trapped by the “iron maiden” and have deemed feminists ugly. What Judith Lorber says we need, is a new way to see.

            I agree of course, that the torch of feminism should be lit again, however, like most I am caught up in the Beauty Myth. My daily log clearly shows that I am chained to beauty ideals, products, and misconceptions. I feel terrible and gross if my hair is unwashed or my eyes are not made up. I spend far too much time observing my imperfections in the mirror and, like most, feel as if I could loose a few pounds. I know that I am healthy and that the world won’t end if I skip my shower in the morning, but sometimes it’s just so hard to fight the norm. The iron maiden example really hit too close to home, it reminded me so much of my self and other women. When reading Ingrid Bank’s “Hair Matters” I definitely found evidence of this “Iron Maiden” complex.

            Bank’s chapters focus on hair and power, hair as empowerment, natural hair as empowerment, hair as disempowerment, hair as economic power, and hair as power to attract a mate. These chapters quote a series of women (all with different hair styles) and their opinions on the above topic. The first woman, Indigo, fires a cannon early on. She says that she doesn’t appreciate when white women comment on her hair, she doesn’t want them to validate or not validate her, “their opinion has no bearing on what I choose to do anymore.”

            On the question: What is the relationship between hair and power? There were many different opinions: some women thought that wearing their hair natural allowed them to participate in a revolutionary act, others thought that the choices they make and the ability to make choices is what’s empowering, some thought that the way in which you chose to wear your hair is a statement in the “face of societal, cultural, and familial opposition”. The opinions were as varied as the styles, and as varied as the women.

            What I thought to be one of the most interesting parts of the article is a conversation I have witnessed before. The question of what makes an “authentic” black identity, and the tensions that surface about ideas of black womanhood. Does wearing your hair naturally make you more “authentic”, does relaxing or straightening your hair make you more a part of mainstream white culture? Although this question wasn’t fully explored in Bank’s text (at least from what we read) it would be something I would be interested to read more about. Of course, these ideas about what is physically beautiful continue to be shaped by social ideals (as Wolf explained) but as Nydeye-Ante says, these are not only white ideals:

                        “We were taught too. And not by white people directly. I mean, that was a deep part of it. The way it works is that the white person doesn’t have to be in front of you preaching to you, “love me better than yourself” anymore because we teach each other that. We get trained so well.”

These societal structures of beauty are being upheld by all of us, we are all trained so well, we are all held within the iron maiden. To break out of this trap Stacy implied that it was imperative that black women construct their own notions of beauty. I think it is imperative that we all construct our own notions of beauty, it is then and only then that we will all be realsed from the Beauty Myth.

            The last section of the text focused on the connection of hair with femininity. Almost everyone stated that long, silky hair is feminine and that short hair can ofton be linked with homosexual perceptions. Some women who had their hair short said that they would try and overcompensate with makeup, accessories, or feminine clothes. They were afraid of what western ideals would assume about them and their sexuality otherwise. The curveball in all of this was that men with long hair, or classically female styles were not considered feminine. In the case of Snoop Dogg and others, their feminine hair added to their heightened sense of masculinity not the other way around.

            I know that I have taken great pride in growing my hair long, and I think that truthfully that really does have to do with what I see as feminine and beautiful. It’s not that I don’t think women with short hair aren’t beautiful of feminine, but like women in the article I have used the excuse that “it wouldn’t work for me”. When my mother asked me this summer why I have been growing my hair out to be so, so long, I responded: “I want to achieve mermaid status”. Ariel, the red headed mermaid and her other Disney sisters were probably my first outside introduction to “The Beauty Myth” and I, apparently have been thirsting after their cartoon styles ever since. Although now I realize how much I give in to these norms, I have also within the past year started my own little hair revolution.

            When I was sixteen I met one of my best friends Quela. (Read her blog here: http://theformativeyears.wordpress.com/ it’s full of tips, tricks, and musings on wearing natural hair) We quickly bonded over classic R&B tunes, our favorite poets, Kim Possible and our love of creating our own clothes. We talked about all the ways we liked to style ourselves, how we wanted the world to see us, and what it was we each saw in our own faces. Once our conversation naturally moved to hair and we ended up deciding like Banks, that hair is a segregated ‘thing’. We thought about the aisles in CVS with the “white” products on one side and the “black” products on the other, the different hair dressers, and the different ‘acceptable’ styles. It was all so separate. For that reason, when I found the brand “Mixed Chicks” I was beyond excited. Mixed Chicks, is a company that makes products for every kind of hair, on their website they state:

            “Finally, a curl-defining system for "us". Whether you're black, white, asian, latin, mediterranean, or any glorious combination of the above, you'll love the way these non-sticky, lightweight curly hair products leave your hair inviting to touch as they define and lock moisture into every curl. Be a proud part of our multiracial movement..."MIXED CHICKS" your curls! And yes, it not only works on wavy, tightly curled or straight hair but it also works on weaves.”

             Suddenly I could group myself with all women, instead of just the ones with a similar ethnic background! Granted, I still use my Paul Mitchell for fancy occasions, but I have relished in the fact that after my shower I can put in a little bit of my Mixed Chicks and go against the grain. I can have my own little hair revolution and break away (if only slightly) from the beauty myth that contains us all.