It is all too common in our society today that the female image is guided and determined by how celebrities are depicted in the media. This is longstanding trend that has impact on everything ranging from hair styles to handbags. The result of media culture and reliance on celebrity image to in turn define female image is a narrow funneling of what exactly is deemed as acceptable and the ‘right’ image of the female. Catherine Saint Louis takes an interesting examination of this characteristic of our society in her New York Times article “Unshaven Women: Free Spirits or Unkempt?” What is unique about Saint Louis’ article though is that she examines the shock and uproar that results when a female celebrity is seen with body hair and how society perceives this as an aberration and an unnatural occurrence. The media culture that is present in this nation where celebrities are looked to as the ideal images creates an atmosphere where women are forced to walk a narrow line. and this is clearly highlighted when a celebrity strays from this short list of acceptable characteristics.
The short list of characteristics used to define what is feminine is shown most clearly when a woman strays from these standards, for example by growing body hair. Perceptions play a large role is shaping body image and the title of Saint Louis’ article highlights the inherent dichotomy in the perception of the female’s decision to let body hair grow. This decision today cannot be viewed as a simple circumstance that arises for no reason at all and instead is labeled by society as either an act of a free spirited individual or someone who has no regard for their image. To the contrary, I would argue that celebrities care very much about their image and Saint Louis cites several in her article. The contemporary example Saint Louis cites is Mo’Nique who was outed as a non-leg shaver while wearing a shorter dress to this past Golden Globes Award ceremony. Other A-list celebrities are included, such as Julia Roberts and Madonna. These are three women who capitalize off of their recognition and their image, yet have been known to sport leg, underarm, and pubic hair. I also feel Saint Louis’ inclusion of the three different areas where women are not expected to have hair is an interesting and beneficial piece of this article. Referencing Madonna’s 1985 appearance in Playboy as the spread, in all senses of the word, Saint Louis shows the different degree of acceptability and reactions to hair that has developed over time. Madonna’s more intimate pictures that “drew cheers not jeers from readers” provide stark contrast to the nasty reaction Mo’Nique received for having leg hair and underscore the strict body image those women perceived as ‘normal’ are forced to adhere to today.[1]
So Saint Louis’ article shows that people today are apt to label body hair on women as “disgusting” but what do the undertones in this article really prove?[2] The biggest message that this article provides, whether Saint Louis intends to or not, is that women are held under great scrutiny and are often met with criticism when they don’t meet society’s desired standards. The standards set by the continual and unavoidable influx of rail thin models and celebrities in society today are beyond the limits of attainability for many women. So while a woman may face scrutiny for placing a few too many calendar days between shaving her legs this culture of continually striving to look like the models is also what leads to eating disorders and other impacts that females are witnessing today. Curtis Sittenfeld’s essay in Listen Up about life as a girl touches on the panic that ensues when a girl’s body begins to stray from the steady and ‘normal’ prepubescent body to the ‘awkward’ and changing body as hormones take the driver’s seat. Portions of the essay such as, “every day during the summer after your junior year in high school, you run two miles to the country club, then you climb 250 flights on the StairMaster” reflect the lengths that are taken to fulfill the desired standard body image for many women.[3] While Sittenfeld’s essay is a fictional set of circumstances measures like this do not seem unrealistic for young girls and women in the pursuit of an idealistic body image. It is the unrealistically high standards driven by our nation’s media culture that drive many females to go to great lengths in order to fulfill not just an ideal body image but one that society has even labeled as the norm for today.
As mentioned earlier, this narrow perception of what defines an acceptable woman has changed over time. Whether through analysis of the appreciation of Madonna’s naked body in 1985, even “with no sign that she had used a razor anywhere,” or adolescent female expression of sexuality today it is clear that times have changed.[4] I do not intend to argue that we have progressed from a perfect time when everyone was cheerful and women were accepted for who they were and not who they were trying to be because this would be inaccurate. The necessity for women to adhere to certain social norms has always been true but I feel that media culture and the reliance on celebrities and models as stock images of femininity has exponentially narrowed the boundaries of acceptability for female body image. Ariel Levy provides a helpful expression of the differences over the past decades that have changed with media culture as she states, “when I went to high school, you wanted to look good and you wanted to look cool, but you would have been embarrassed to look slutty.”[5] This is included in her chapter ‘Pigs in Training’ that highlights the prevalent sexuality in younger and younger females. Thongs, short skirts, tube tops, and even sex have been mainstreamed for young women in society and this is a result of the ubiquitous presence of images of women bearing these articles or engaging in these acts. Levy even points out that the tabloid fascination with Paris Hilton’s sex tape has led to a similar instance with an eighth grader where “like Paris Hilton before her, the dissemination of her amateur porn swiftly resulted in a major uptick in her level of popularity and celebrity.”[6] No, not every eighth grade girl is making and distributing sex tapes but images, people, events, and other aspects of the media are exacting more influence than ever. One of the greatest impacts from the media is the ability to present a specific personality, image, and set of characteristics that is common among a small group of women and attribute this to the entire female population, causing anyone who is different to be scrutinized. Saint Louis’ article is not a manifesto attempting to tear down the societal structure that has led to the constriction of the female image in society. I even think Saint Louis’ acknowledgement and highlighting of those celebrities with body hair as different has just that effect in alienating them from the norm as something ‘weird’ and ‘different.’ Weird and different are not the commonly accepted standards for the female in society and definitely not what has become characteristic of media in our society. Therefore, even while Saint Louis may not be trying to take a controversial stance she does provide a starting point for evaluating the role that media and celebrity culture has taken on our society. While there may be no particular person or people to blame, certainly not celebrities and models for being who they are, there is clearly issues present in our society that show clear signs of stemming from what we see in the media. I think through education and acceptance of what truly is a standard body image and personality type may lead to countless benefits for women and society as a whole. This is of course a massive undertaking but as Saint Louis highlights with the transition in turning of perceptions from 1985 to today, from acceptance to rejection, changes and evolution can and do take place. There is nothing stopping a reversal of these trends in society today and rather than the attempts at homogeneity we need to push for individuality and the acceptance of women for who they are, even if they have hairy legs.
[1] Catherine Saint Louis, “Unshaven Women: Free Spirits or Unkempt?,” The New York Times, April 15, 2010, Fashion and Style.
[2] Catherine Saint Louis, “Unshaven Women: Free Spirits or Unkempt?”
[3] Curtis Sittenfeld, “Your Life as a Girl,” in Listen Up: Voices of the New Feminist Generation, ed. Barbara Findlen (New York: Seal Press, 2001), 3-10.
[4] Catherine Saint Louis, “Unshaven Women: Free Spirits or Unkempt?”
[5] Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (New York: Free Press, 2006).
[6] Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.
The short list of characteristics used to define what is feminine is shown most clearly when a woman strays from these standards, for example by growing body hair. Perceptions play a large role is shaping body image and the title of Saint Louis’ article highlights the inherent dichotomy in the perception of the female’s decision to let body hair grow. This decision today cannot be viewed as a simple circumstance that arises for no reason at all and instead is labeled by society as either an act of a free spirited individual or someone who has no regard for their image. To the contrary, I would argue that celebrities care very much about their image and Saint Louis cites several in her article. The contemporary example Saint Louis cites is Mo’Nique who was outed as a non-leg shaver while wearing a shorter dress to this past Golden Globes Award ceremony. Other A-list celebrities are included, such as Julia Roberts and Madonna. These are three women who capitalize off of their recognition and their image, yet have been known to sport leg, underarm, and pubic hair. I also feel Saint Louis’ inclusion of the three different areas where women are not expected to have hair is an interesting and beneficial piece of this article. Referencing Madonna’s 1985 appearance in Playboy as the spread, in all senses of the word, Saint Louis shows the different degree of acceptability and reactions to hair that has developed over time. Madonna’s more intimate pictures that “drew cheers not jeers from readers” provide stark contrast to the nasty reaction Mo’Nique received for having leg hair and underscore the strict body image those women perceived as ‘normal’ are forced to adhere to today.[1]
So Saint Louis’ article shows that people today are apt to label body hair on women as “disgusting” but what do the undertones in this article really prove?[2] The biggest message that this article provides, whether Saint Louis intends to or not, is that women are held under great scrutiny and are often met with criticism when they don’t meet society’s desired standards. The standards set by the continual and unavoidable influx of rail thin models and celebrities in society today are beyond the limits of attainability for many women. So while a woman may face scrutiny for placing a few too many calendar days between shaving her legs this culture of continually striving to look like the models is also what leads to eating disorders and other impacts that females are witnessing today. Curtis Sittenfeld’s essay in Listen Up about life as a girl touches on the panic that ensues when a girl’s body begins to stray from the steady and ‘normal’ prepubescent body to the ‘awkward’ and changing body as hormones take the driver’s seat. Portions of the essay such as, “every day during the summer after your junior year in high school, you run two miles to the country club, then you climb 250 flights on the StairMaster” reflect the lengths that are taken to fulfill the desired standard body image for many women.[3] While Sittenfeld’s essay is a fictional set of circumstances measures like this do not seem unrealistic for young girls and women in the pursuit of an idealistic body image. It is the unrealistically high standards driven by our nation’s media culture that drive many females to go to great lengths in order to fulfill not just an ideal body image but one that society has even labeled as the norm for today.
As mentioned earlier, this narrow perception of what defines an acceptable woman has changed over time. Whether through analysis of the appreciation of Madonna’s naked body in 1985, even “with no sign that she had used a razor anywhere,” or adolescent female expression of sexuality today it is clear that times have changed.[4] I do not intend to argue that we have progressed from a perfect time when everyone was cheerful and women were accepted for who they were and not who they were trying to be because this would be inaccurate. The necessity for women to adhere to certain social norms has always been true but I feel that media culture and the reliance on celebrities and models as stock images of femininity has exponentially narrowed the boundaries of acceptability for female body image. Ariel Levy provides a helpful expression of the differences over the past decades that have changed with media culture as she states, “when I went to high school, you wanted to look good and you wanted to look cool, but you would have been embarrassed to look slutty.”[5] This is included in her chapter ‘Pigs in Training’ that highlights the prevalent sexuality in younger and younger females. Thongs, short skirts, tube tops, and even sex have been mainstreamed for young women in society and this is a result of the ubiquitous presence of images of women bearing these articles or engaging in these acts. Levy even points out that the tabloid fascination with Paris Hilton’s sex tape has led to a similar instance with an eighth grader where “like Paris Hilton before her, the dissemination of her amateur porn swiftly resulted in a major uptick in her level of popularity and celebrity.”[6] No, not every eighth grade girl is making and distributing sex tapes but images, people, events, and other aspects of the media are exacting more influence than ever. One of the greatest impacts from the media is the ability to present a specific personality, image, and set of characteristics that is common among a small group of women and attribute this to the entire female population, causing anyone who is different to be scrutinized. Saint Louis’ article is not a manifesto attempting to tear down the societal structure that has led to the constriction of the female image in society. I even think Saint Louis’ acknowledgement and highlighting of those celebrities with body hair as different has just that effect in alienating them from the norm as something ‘weird’ and ‘different.’ Weird and different are not the commonly accepted standards for the female in society and definitely not what has become characteristic of media in our society. Therefore, even while Saint Louis may not be trying to take a controversial stance she does provide a starting point for evaluating the role that media and celebrity culture has taken on our society. While there may be no particular person or people to blame, certainly not celebrities and models for being who they are, there is clearly issues present in our society that show clear signs of stemming from what we see in the media. I think through education and acceptance of what truly is a standard body image and personality type may lead to countless benefits for women and society as a whole. This is of course a massive undertaking but as Saint Louis highlights with the transition in turning of perceptions from 1985 to today, from acceptance to rejection, changes and evolution can and do take place. There is nothing stopping a reversal of these trends in society today and rather than the attempts at homogeneity we need to push for individuality and the acceptance of women for who they are, even if they have hairy legs.
[1] Catherine Saint Louis, “Unshaven Women: Free Spirits or Unkempt?,” The New York Times, April 15, 2010, Fashion and Style.
[2] Catherine Saint Louis, “Unshaven Women: Free Spirits or Unkempt?”
[3] Curtis Sittenfeld, “Your Life as a Girl,” in Listen Up: Voices of the New Feminist Generation, ed. Barbara Findlen (New York: Seal Press, 2001), 3-10.
[4] Catherine Saint Louis, “Unshaven Women: Free Spirits or Unkempt?”
[5] Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (New York: Free Press, 2006).
[6] Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.
I also wrote about this article, but I went in a different direction. I wrote about how perhaps Mo'nique defining her legs as a "Black woman's thing" is a example of how the second wave of feminism was different for black woman and white woman. Black women didnt have time or money to waste it on shaving their legs, whereas white women had money to purchase new fashion styles which created the leg shaving craze. I like how you took this article and turned it into an issue about trends in society. good job
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with this blog. In our culture we are constantly basing whats "in" on celebrities and societal trends. I think the opinion that body hair on women is seen as "disgusting" also ties in with the opinion that menstruation as disgusting. Both are natural part of women's lives. Most women are expected to pretend that they don't have body hair. Anyone who has seen Sex and the City can recall the infamous scene of Miranda in her bathing suit. True to her character, Samantha harasses Miranda for not getting a bikini wax. This scene encompasses exactly the issues this blog is about. If this is a natural part of life, why are women expected to get rid of it?
ReplyDelete