In her bestselling book The Beauty Myth (1990), the feminist author Naomi Wolf rails against, what she deems to be the dominant standards of beauty and feminine aesthetics of our day. The standards which elevate curves, cleavage, full lips, lean long legs; and underpinning these, youth and health, as forces which are advanced by (male-dominated) corporations to keep women down.

Entities, who through adverts and entertainment, insidiously work to subdue the will of women. By evoking, inducing, and potentially imposing on women a set of expectations with regard to sex, beauty and femininity. As the argument goes, such unattainable beauty standards that women have been made to embrace have pushed modern women into social straitjackets that keep them psychologically restricted. As Ms. Wolf explains:

“The ideology of beauty is the one remaining of the old feminine ideologies that still has the power to control those women whom second-wave feminism would have otherwise made relatively uncontrollable” ⁽⁹⁾.

Ms. Wolf takes an interesting but predictable approach in associating “beauty” with terms like ‘control’, ‘power’ and ‘ideology’. Feminism, like any Marxist-inspired grievance-based movement views human relationships at the level of the collective as powerplays between opposing factions: patricians vs pelbian, serfs vs landlords, men vs women. But what the feminist Ms Wolf gets wrong is misapprehending how power, in relation to beauty, operates in a relatively free (non-totalitarian) society where individual agency rules.

The first mistake that Ms. Wolf makes is to suggest that beauty is an external construct: something that society defines and then hurls onto the shoulders of women and girls, expecting them to conform to it. When in fact beauty which can be defined as the level of attractiveness that varies from woman to woman, is integral, and in many ways, I would argue, is unique to women. You cannot call a man ‘beautiful’, But a woman, certainly.

To understand how Ms. Wolf came to associate beauty with a means of control, as something that is externally imposed on women with its implied connection to an ideology-presumably market capitalism-one needs to understand the psychology of the author and the movement she represents.

The first thing to note is that there is something inherently negative and distasteful about the feminist movement. As noted, it is a movement which is based on and trades in grievance. Hence it represents something quite dark and pessimistic about female nature. Driven by a worldview that builds on the mistaken notion that men, specifically Western men: those who claim Athens, Rome and Jerusalem as their heritage are oppressors of women, and thus necessitates the ‘liberation’ of females from such oppression. This negative worldview lies at the heart of feminism and everything that its ideologues claim and advocate.

Building on Betty Friedan’s “feminine mystique”, Ms. Wolf’s argument is that via the “sexy myth,” the forces of female oppression of the past have mutated and are now attacking another chink in the female armor. A new front in the war against women that seeks to subdue the free spirit of politically liberated women with a new form of psychological oppression. As Wolf writes:

“The diet and skin industries became the new cultural sensors of women’s intellectual space, and because of their pressure, the gaunt, youthful model supplanted the happy housewife as the arbiter of successful womanhood” ^(ibid).

Such reasoning, in a rather peculiar sense, is understandable. As more culturally entrenched forms of female oppression, such as legal barriers that hold women back are now history, it is time to turn the attention to subtler forms of gender oppression/sexism.

With regards to Ms. Wolf and her “beauty myth”, one needs to understand the deeper psychology that is at work here. Whenever feminists raise concerns about male oppression, double standards and the like in the world today, one must recognize that there are other factors and stakes at play. At a time in history when women in the West as a group are doing far better than men at the same stage in life. A subject I have dealt with in my essay: Why Men Matter. It is important that men be aware of deeper incongruities that exist within, and the aliments that afflict the feminist mind.

If one can look past the regurgitated and altruistically-sounding themes and slogans that get passed around by feminist campaigners under the heading of “gender equality” or “equal rights”, one soon discovers a certain rot at the heart of the feminist worldview. An anti-sexual one.

The talks of “body positivity” where women are supposed to be affirmed and respected regardless of being on the high end of the body-mass index, including those who are clinically obese, operate out of the “beauty myth” playbook. The idea is that women can somehow look the way they want, even if that means being ridiculously out of shape, and still expect to be taken seriously in a romantic or sexual sense goes against the logic of life.

The reason why companies employ young, sexy, fit women to advertise their products is because that is what men and women desire. In other words, the world of business and corporations are responding to signals that stem from the human mind and are building their products and services around it. It is not the other way around. A subject I will return to.

On the feminist side, what is being offered as alternatives is the antithesis of the biologically determined and culturally affirmed markers of attraction. This is common sense. Being slim, and toned with few blemishes makes a woman more attractive than a female who isn’t. A fact that the business community exploits via the commodification, or better the ‘productization’ of beauty. It markets to the masses who are drawn to it because it resonates with something deep within them, as consumers but preceding that as human beings.

What the “beauty myth” that Ms. Wolf and the feminist ‘fat is beautiful’ or ‘out of shape is sexy’ crowd are preaching is the destruction of those standards. Interestingly when people like Naomi Wolf, Betty Friedan and other anti-beauty or better, anti-sex feminists rail against commercials featuring hot models, beauty pageants featuring girls in bikinis, or speaking of Hollywood, the replacement of traditional beauty, youth and heteronormativity with the girl-boss that embodies butch, dyke and matriarchal personas; what they are really doing is not fighting for ‘gender equality’ but rather advancing a gendered agenda of their own.

Think about it. When people habitually complain and accuse others of doing something bad, like lying, it often means the person in question is guilty of the very same thing. The problem of projection is well understood within psychological circles, and it appears this state of mind is operative here at the level of the individual and the collective when it comes to feminism and its proponents.

The determination and organized rage of the anti-beach body-ready protesters showcased the spirit of intolerance that lies at the heart of the modern feminist movement. By claiming to be the powerless victims of social norms on feminine beauty, these ideologues sought to and succeeded in imposing on society their worldview of what counts as acceptable body standards.

Feminists in fighting the beauty myth-that is traditional heterosexual standards that pertain to female beauty, femininity and sexiness-are advancing a narrative of their own. An ideologically motivated one. When feminists accuse corporations, society, capitalism or men of using standards of beauty to consolidate power and keep women down, ironically what the feminists are seeking is the very same thing. Power. The power to influence, shape, assert and if necessary impose their beliefs and standards on what constitutes ‘beauty’, and by extension on how women should be perceived, and what men’s expectations should be as far as modern women are concerned.

This is where you have young women today, like those who find themselves on dating/relationship podcasts like Fresh and Fit, Whatever etc. Describing themselves as being a 10/10 on the looks, personality and desirability departments, even when reality does not conform to this notion. Also worth mentioning, many of these girls are selling themselves on OnlyFans, which is a subject for another time.

Returning to the matter of ‘gender equality’ and ‘equal representation’, such language which is often employed rhetorically, despite their egalitarian tone masks a certain bitterness towards the true, the good and the beautiful. The indignant cry for justice and the call to right the supposed wrongs of the past has disarmed critics on the Left and the Right. With the main target of such injustices is heterosexual men who value traditional gender norms with respect to the sexes.

An important question here is: who gets to decide what should/ought to be acceptable body standards? The physical makeup and various other attributes that make a woman beautiful are as the saying goes ‘in the eye of the beholder’. However, as a society, men and women have converged on a set of physical attributes that would deem a female attractive and hence desirable.

Thus the businesses advertising such fitness products base their decision on serious market research involving the study of of consumer preferences, combined with an understanding of societal norms on what makes a girl attractive. Building on these insights such beauty products are developed and marketed to females; namely, the aspiring ones to work towards the ideal. It goes without saying that the people protesting the beach body ready advert do not meet this standard and/or do not wish to live up to it, and worse, oppose the very existence of such standards in the first place.

Essentially what the feminists did in protesting the beach body ad was to invite censorship. Unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas by advertising their own standards of ‘beauty’ via a marketable product; the perpetually offended class of modern, liberated equality-obsessed women, by generating social discontent appeal to the power of the State. Inviting its heavy (interventionist) hand to shut down what they (the feminists) as a group deemed to be “offensive”, “discriminatory”, “sexist”. This is not a fight for ‘equality’ or ‘better representation’ or whatever the rhetoric the feminists use, rather it is the inability to accept the humanistic principle of live and let live.

Whilst the State can guarantee that women are not discriminated against in the pursuit of their economic security, self-worth and recognition; that does not entitle women as a distinct group to special treatment. That some women (albeit a very vocal one) have a problem with what private corporations are doing in the marketplace, does not mean that corporate marketing decisions infringe on all women’s right to ignore, dismiss or pursue alternate standards of beauty. 

But as is increasingly the case, the feminist fight for equality in practice often comes down to a single-minded pursuit of a select understanding of what it means to be an empowered woman in modern society. A key takeaway here is that such efforts of social mobilization by feminists to fight sexist beauty standards or whatever other ‘injustice’ only succeed in protecting the fragile egos of the types of women who are unwilling to look good: that is in a way that is sexually appealing to men. In the meantime, their bullying activism makes life difficult for companies: its owners, managers, employees, etc. who are trying to make a living by selling a viable product.

As for the “feminine mystique” argument that women must be liberated from the inebriating effects of advertising, and underlying it market capitalism that is supposed to be keeping women confined to the familial space. Well if that argument is true the only way to challenge that is in the marketplace. This is a tough proposition for feminists, and their Statist bakers on the political Left.

Whilst the market system is not perfect and is prone to producing negative externalities in the absence of government oversight and in some cases leading to market failure. Though the latter scenario is often due to the distorting effects of State intervention. But the answer is not to shut down, stymie or forcefully alter its business practices by appealing to the power of government.

If you don’t like a product or service, which begins life as an idea envisioned by the entrepreneur, your response is to not buy it. And if you really have a problem with a product or service (one that is not overtly harmful) and think you can do better, then come up with something of your own by entering into the competitive arena of business economics.

This is something feminists simply cannot do. If history is anything to go by, the feminist response to any injustice, real or perceived, is activism. Since the goal is equality: specifically the equality of outcomes, they are blinded to the mechanics that underpin success in the marketplace, and instead seek to distort its normal operation. The ‘marketplace’ in this case consists not only of beauty products but also movies, TV, corporate representation and even military service.

In 2022, after years of pushing for more female representation in boards and higher levels of management, a popular talking point in gatherings like Davos World Economic Forum and the highly publicized research by consultancies like McKinsey & Company, the European Union (EU) reached an agreement where all boards in companies with 250 or more employees must have at least 40 per cent women. Quotas in other words ⁽¹⁰⁾. In 2022, a study conducted by the Rand Corporation found that the military had to lower test standards to better the chances for women to pass fitness tests ⁽¹¹⁾.

Now a question I would like to pose on the beach body-ready protests is, what do these feminists actually seek to accomplish, besides having the company pull down its ads and the potential revenue it stands to gain? I don’t know, force such corporations to feature models of all sizes!? Effectively distorting the very purpose of running a targeted ad campaign, intended to engage a certain demographic.

The sad part is that these protesters, by shutting down views and ideas deemed heretical-work to marginalize the beliefs and voices of women who are in tune with their femininity and sexuality and are realistic about the way the world works. Whilst sexless/anti-sex feminism is the dominant gender ideology of our time (until the rise of transgenderism), the fact is there are a lot of women out there: heterosexual, feminine, youthful, beautiful females who are comfortable with their sexuality and wish to showcase it to the world.

But owing to the puritanical and inherently intolerant nature of modern feminism such voices are robbed of their freedom to choose, and by extension a portion of their agency. Feminist activists in their quest to save women from their own susceptibility to feminine mystique question the volition and freedom of women they seek to liberate.

The decision was taken by Formula One to end the use of ‘Grid Girls’-scantily clad, attractive women who do promotional work in races-in 2018 is another such example. This decision was justified on the grounds of promoting “gender equality”. But everyone knows the real force behind such moves. The sad part is that such a decision disenfranchises a lot of attractive, aspirational women from making a living and using that F1 stage as a platform to build their careers ⁽¹²⁾.

Taking a step back, it seems for the feminists of today the idea of women’s liberation is not really about giving women the freedom to choose among competing alternatives with respect to identity, vocation, social function and sexual expression. Feminism, if the beach-body-ready protests and other anti-sex campaigns in recent memory, like the ‘Gamergate’ saga is anything to go by, is mainly concerned with advancing a predefined narrative on what is the socially acceptable definition of womanhood. A narrative, and underlying it, an ideology, that is intolerant of competing views of women’s empowerment, particularly those that factor in their sexuality.

If women stopped enhancing and showcasing the beauty that nature (or God) has imbued them and instead resigned to the (easy) fate of looking out of shape, rough and ready all the time, disabusing themselves of the enslaving standards of beauty, sexiness and desirability that exploitative men have thrust upon them, a potential consequence (possibly a desired one) is that women, particularly the young, attractive, and impressionable ones will be made to idolize the persona of such activists. The loud, browbeating bunch of obnoxious sirens who don’t have to give a darn about anything but their own peace of mind.

But that is not enough. Feminists in Western culture, and particularly the Anglo-American world have gone ideologically unopposed for so long (again, until the rise of transgenderism – but for the wrong reasons) they see themselves fit to function as moral arbiters on debates surrounding gender and sexuality. So certain are they of their moral and ethical infallibility that censorship on the grounds that something is deemed to be offensive or at odds with their beliefs is justified.

The dominance of feminism culturally in the West is partly due to a lack of countervailing views on female sexuality. The heteronormative kind. Whenever complaints of sexism, female objectification, ‘male-gaze’ and the like are raised, the target is invariably male. Specifically White, Western, Christian, heterosexual males. Modern feminism appears to be defined by this toxic anti- heteronormative, male spirit that is uncomfortable whenever female sexuality is showcased or celebrated in a way that is captivating to such a demographic.

In 2011 the high-end British retailer Marks and Spencer was ordered by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to take down ads featuring a hot model in lingerie following complaints that it was “overtly sexual” ⁽¹³⁾. The argument for its censorship was on the grounds that the ad, which was posted on London buses, would be viewed by children. This is a fair point. But looking it at critically, it becomes clear there is more to this.

The first thing to note is that London, like any major Western, cosmopolitan city is filled with ads, commercials and other materials that use young, attractive women for commercial purposes. With the target audience invariably being heterosexual members of society; who incidentally make up the vast majority.

Such adverts are likely to resonate with those who are in touch with their sexuality: persons who are not afraid of their capacity for sexual intimacy, or in the case of the neurotic, living in a state of perpetual contradiction with it. A criticism that also applies to many religious (conservatives) who favor censorship.

On the subject of child safety, the goal to protect young minds from the world of adults that is filled with sex and innuendo is a good one. What is curious is that such calls for censorship would not be forthcoming in Western nations if the sexuality in question was homosexual in nature, or of any other identities that make up the LGBT alphabet soup. One would be hard-pressed to find feminist calls for censorship of gay pride parades, transgender drag shows and the like which feature live nudity, often in full view of the public.

The point is feminism in its ideologically adversarial form, is directed solely at heterosexual sensibilities and by extension the worldview of heterosexual men. So feminism as an anti-sex movement is fundamentally an anti-heterosexual one.