What Does Beauty Mean to You?
“What does the idea of beauty mean to you?”
It’s not the first time you’ve heard that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” While that still holds true, Ebru and I wanted to convey a vision of beauty that is fluid, one that is infectious and inspiring, one that ceases to confine women to negativity and destructive habits. The abstract vision of beauty is associated with positive attributes most commonly found within one’s personality; however, it is continually juxtaposed with a rigid standard of physicality that is implemented by the patriarchy.
Simone de Beauvoir states,“So not every female human being is necessarily a woman; she must take part in this mysterious and endangered reality known as femininity.” The “vague and shimmering terms” that is definitive of femininity are also integrated into the notion of beauty. In other words, the more “feminine” a woman is, the more beautiful she perceives herself as and is perceived to be. Within The Second Sex, Beauvoir poses the question “what is a woman?” While the ideas of femininity and beauty are first what come to mind, Beauvoir takes the question in a new direction by claiming that a woman “is nothing other than what man decides,” in an attempt to demonstrate that woman is reduced to ‘the sex,’ what man sees her as. Woman cannot see herself in relation to man; if she is nothing other than what man decides, it serves to emphasize the malleability of the female body. In other words, men are able to shape the bodies of women to meet the needs of the patriarchy — to fulfill sensations of their pleasure. Beauvoir’s argument exposes that the definitive qualities of femininity are hyper-sexualized and is intertwined with modern media — the commodification of femininity. In other words, using a hyper-sexualized vision of woman and deeming it “beautiful.” Furthermore, if woman does not think of herself without reference to male; Beauvoir reinforces that women serve to “perform” beauty for the male counterpart as means of meeting the standard that is perpetuated by today’s culture and is sustained by the media.
Susan Bordo, a prominent feminist philosopher, opens her essay “The Body and the Reproduction of Femininity,” “The body — what we eat, how we dress, the daily rituals through which we attend to the body — is a medium of culture.” Thus, the body is a symbolic representation of where women stand in the hierarchy of society. Bordo emphasizes the importance of the body’s role within society — specifically the physical representation of women. It is evident through studies that women have spent more and more time managing their bodies by means of disciplinary praxes — such as minimal eating and regular exercise — to achieve the desired look deemed by society (in addition to modifying hair, makeup, and attire) (166). Women often undergo a continuous cycle: “external regulation, subjection, transformation, and finally ‘improvement’ (Bordo 166). By this way of thought, women are rendered less as social creatures and more so seen as obsessed with self-modification to meet the normative aesthetic standards of beauty.
Womens’ obsessions with body image is indicative of Sandra Lee Bartky’s assertion that “femininity is an artifice, an achievement.” Furthermore, “she examines disciplinary practices that produce a body which in gesture and appearance is recognizably feminine.” Bartky argues three major points to support her claims of “the modernization of patriarchal power.” Women continually aim to produce a body of a certain size and configuration; she defines the normative standard as “taut, small-breasted, narrow hipped, and of a slimness bordering on emaciation.” While the idea of slim and slender has transitioned into having curves in the right places; Bartky’s claim that “massiveness, power, or abundance in a woman’s body is met with distaste” is still relevant today. Serena Williams is a modern-day example who is emblematic of all of the characteristics (those that Bartky names distasteful) and continues to receive scrutiny from society despite her athleticism. Bartky notions the body (face) as being an ornamented surface. She concludes that the idea of self-expression when it comes to makeup, is not as liberating as one may think. It’s much rather the activity of “painting the face over and over with minor variations.” Furthermore, the act of ‘making up’ is more of a socially acceptable, even expected, activity.
Looking from an international perspective on the ideal notion of beauty, we have gathered that the beauty ideals vary across cultures. Upon exploring numerous studies, we found one that featured Esther Honig — a human interest reporter, She emailed forty photography editors in twenty-five different countries to take the attached image of herself, asking them to “make [her] look beautiful.” The results illustrate the image of “the perfect woman — ” further reinforcing how each country used their distinct perspective on beauty to edit her self-portrait. Honig’s experiment serves to be a visual representation of how a myriad of countries perceives beauty based on cultural values.
Looking at the visual images ourselves, we’ve noticed the most common trend includes “natural” or minimal makeup applied to the portrait. Surprisingly, only seven countries applied heavy makeup while four countries expanded beyond the face by adding accessories, such as jewelry and making stylistic modifications to the hair. The most shocking revelation was that the United States was the only country to shrink the size of Honig’s face dramatically.
The results indicate that on a global perspective, “natural” or minimal makeup is the most common perception of beauty; thus, it reinforces that beauty — in its essence — cannot be left untouched.
Upon focusing on the body, Ebru and I looked at an article featured in the Huffington Post titled, Perceptions of Perfection Across Borders.” The project consisted of female graphic designers from around to the world to use Photoshop to fabricate attraction as considered by other citizens of their respective countries. Some designers — representing the Americas — produced an exaggerated hourglass figure; while European and Asian nations chose to render the model so thin that her estimated BMI (according to a survey conducted) would fall under or close to 17.5. According to the NHS, “Adults with anorexia generally have a BMI below 17.5.” Because women are more familiar with the pressures of meeting standards of attraction in their own respective countries, only female graphic designers were asked to participate in this study.
As a result, from looking at the photoshopped images, it is clear that a common trend was depicted. Although not true for all countries, majority photoshopped the original prototypical image to have full breasts, a narrow waist, and larger hips; thus eliciting the infamous “hourglass” figure. The hourglass silhouette is considered to be a symbol of beauty; the iconic bodies of Marilyn Monroe and Kim Kardashian are representative standards of beauty. Although the hourglass figure was represented in the majority of the images, it was not a unanimous feature. The conclusions drawn as a result of the findings indicated that beauty cannot be judged objectively.
It is no surprise that women who embody the normative standard of beauty are represented on magazine covers, films, and are largely held responsible for the evolution of eating disorders and body dysmorphia that inflict the minds of young women today. Devendra Singh — a professor at the University of Texas at Austin — conducted a study based on the Evolutionary Psychology of facial features. Facial features are indicative of beauty, “full[er] lips, smaller chin, symmetry of bilateral facial features;” however, Singh also states that these features are also indicators of “sex hormone, reproductive potential, and healthiness.” According to Singh, a “widely-used anthropometric technique to ascertain the degree of gynoid and android fat distribution is to measure circumference of the waist (narrowest portion between the ribs and iliac crest) and hips (at the level of the greatest protrusion of the buttocks), and using these measurements to compute a waist-to-hip ratio (WHR).” A typical range for a healthy waist-to-hip ratio for premenopausal women is “.67 to .80;” women who have a higher waist-to-hip ratio “have more irregular menstrual cycles, fewer ovulatory cycles, and lower pregnancy rates in artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization embryo transfers than women with lower WHRs, independent of body weight.” Thus, it’s not only a matter of being more physically attractive; but it is also an indicator of being evolutionarily desirable. The ideal waist-to-hip ratio embodies “the allure of the hourglass figure” that is ingrained into the brain — as it conveys crucial information “about a woman’s youthfulness, health status, and fertility.”
The hourglass figure represents the pinnacle of attraction; much of today’s society revolves around the Kardashian standard of beauty. Kim Kardashian — one of the most prominent figures in pop culture — is one example of the embodiment of the “hourglass figure.” She is an icon not just on television, but also is continually referenced in rap music. The song, Rolex — performed by Ayo and Teo — is one of the most popular hip-hop songs on Apple Music (released in 2016). The song plays, “I want a girl built just like Kim K;” which further reinforces that men hyper-sexualize the desired hip-to-waist ratio. The evolution of “thick” — also associated with Kim Kardashian — highlights the strategic notion of having “all the curves in the right places.” The hip hop group Migos’ song Pop That vocalizes, “Lil Mama so thick, look like Kim Kardashian.” This combination of hip-to-waist ratio with the addition of curves reinforces the unattainable standard of beauty that is perpetuated by pop culture. Kim Kardashian’s standard of beauty is rooted in cosmetic alterations that allow her to have the features that she has — liposuction (with fat transfer to the buttocks), breast implants, and lip injections. Young girls who consume media — through television, listening to music, and flipping through magazines — see this as the standard, it heightens the possibility of body dysmorphia and eating disorders in an attempt to achieve the Kim K caliber for beauty.
Trisha Paytas — YouTuber and music artist — released a song in 2016 titled, “Thick,” to which she sexualizes curviness and embraces it. She sings, “Thick girls are a boy’s best friend,” however, it is imperative to recognize that “thickness” does not mean the same for men and women. According to Urban Dictionary, a man defines thick as “a woman with a perfect body, [filled-in] places that are, by nature, designed to attract the opposite sex, such as the thighs, the hips, the breasts, and the most lovely part of all, the booty” (DRay). However, a woman defines thick as “a girl who isn’t fat or skinny, but is well proportioned, has enough meat on her bones in all the right places, most men like the thick ones” (Brena).
While the abstract definition is widely up to interpretation; the physical standard for beauty remains largely a result of the influence implemented by the patriarchy. We’ve discussed Kim Kardashian — her body representative of ideal, unattainable standard. But how is this unattainable? Although Kim K denies that she received any form of cosmetic alterations; Dr. Tabasum Mir — New York City based dermatologist — states, “She looks fantastic, but everybody needs to understand its not natural because everyone wants those tiny waists and the big backsides and it’s not from squats everybody.” Thus, Dr. Tabasum Mir’s claims are illustrative of a newly redefined, fabricated notion of beauty; one that cannot be followed naturally through a healthy diet and regular exercise. Bell Hooks states, “Until feminists create an ongoing, sustained revolution, we will not be free. We will not know how to love our bodies as ourselves.” Hooks’ statement amplifies that the patriarchy still remains prevalent in the fabrication of the normative standard of beauty, and continues to commodify a hyper-sexualized standard of unnatural beauty.
Sources
Bartky, Sandra Lee. “Focault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power.” The Politics of Women’s Bodies: Sexuality, Appearance, and Behavior. By Rose Weitz and Samantha Kwan. New York: Oxford UP, 2014. 64–83. Print.
Beauvoir, Simone De. “Introduction.” The Second Sex. London: Vintage Classic, 2015. N. pag. Print.
Bordo, Susan. Unbearable Weight Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. Berkeley, Calif.: U of California, 2013. Print.
Chung, Madelyn. “Woman Photoshopped In 18 Countries To Show ‘Ideal Body’ Standards Worldwide.” The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 18 Aug. 2015. Web. 11 May 2017. <http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/17/perceptions-of-perfection-ideal-body_n_7998376.html>.
Dailymail.com, Erica Tempesta For. “Celebrity Dermatologist Insists Kylie Jenner and Kim Kardashian Have Both ‘had Their Hips and Butts Done’ as Well as Undergoing Numerous Surgeries on Their Faces.” Daily Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 15 Dec. 2015. Web. 11 May 2017. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3360879/Celebrity-dermatologist-insists-Kylie-Jenner-Kim-Kardashian-hips-butts-undergoing-numerous-surgeries-faces.html>.
DRay, and Brena. “Thick.” Urban Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2017. <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thick&utm_source=search-action>.
Duberman, Amanda. “What Happened When One Woman Had Her Picture Photoshopped In 25 Different Countries.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 26 June 2014. Web. 11 May 2017. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/26/photoshop-around-the-world_n_5534062.html>.
Fante, John. Wait until Spring, Bandini. Edinburgh: Canongate, 2007. Print.
Hooks, Bell. Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. New York, NY: Routledge, 2015. Print.
Marinaccio, Rocco. “”Tea and Cookies. Diavolo!”: Italian American Masculinity in John Fante’s Wait until Spring, Bandini.” MELUS. The Society for the Study of the Multi-Ethnics Literature of the United States, 22 Sept. 2009. Web. 11 May 2017. <https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-207391707/tea-and-cookies-diavolo-italian-american-masculinity>.
Ryan, Melissa. “At Home in America: John Fante and the Imaginative American Self.” Studies in American Fiction. Johns Hopkins University Press, 22 Sept. 2004. Web. 11 May 2017. <https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-129250674/at-home-in-america-john-fante-and-the-imaginative>.
Sciorra, Joseph. “Italian Folk: Vernacular Culture in Italian-American Lives.” 2011, Page 21 by Joseph Sciorra, Simone Cinotto, John Allan Cicala, Lara Pascali, Kenneth Scambray, Joseph J. Inguanti, Marion S. Jacobson, Joan L. Saverino, Peter Savastano, Luisa Del Giudice, Sabina Magliocco. | Online Research Library: Questia. Questia, n.d. Web. 11 May 2017. <https://www.questia.com/read/120844021/italian-folk-vernacular-culture-in-italian-american>.
Singh, Devendra. “An Evolutionary Theory of Female Physical Attractiveness.” Eye on Psi Chi 10.3 (2006): n. pag. He National Honor Society in Psychology, 2006. Web. <http://people.fmarion.edu/tbarbeau/An%20Evolutionary%20Theory%20of%20Female%20Physical%20Attractiveness.pdf>.
Tamburri, Anthony Julian. “Beyond “Pizza” and “Nonna”! Or, What’s Bad about Italian/American Criticism? Further Directions for Italian/American Cultural Studies (1).” MELUS. The Society for the Study of the Multi-Ethnics Literature of the United States, 22 Sept. 2003. Web. 11 May 2017. <https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-110473966/beyond-pizza-and-nonna-or-what-s-bad-about-italian-american>.
