Revisiting 'The Beauty Myth'

An accidental critique of a feminist classic ... oh, and Andrew Tate.

Hey, lovely herstorian 👋

Question for you: Have you read ‘The Beauty Myth’ by Naomi Wolf? 👇

I ask because I’m re-reading it. Though it came out in 1991, I read it back in 2003 when I was 17. It had a *profound* impact on me and my thinking as a young woman. It’s widely hailed as feminist classic and it is. Truly. I fully encourage you to go and read it if you haven’t - regardless of your gender.

The funny thing about revisiting something is that you pick up stuff you didn’t really notice the first time. In fact, Wolf had stopped me in my tracks by page 10 because she started making some pretty interesting claims about the Industrial Revolution. And, as you know, this is my current obsession 😉 so how could I not go down the rabbit-hole?!

What is the Beauty Myth?

Before we start dissecting her claims (yes, we’re going there), let’s just summarise what the Beauty Myth is. Essentially, Wolf argues that women in the West are entrapped by an ideal of beauty. Whether at home, work or in the bedroom, women are constantly bombarded by this ideal and sold products and a lifestyle that will (allegedly) help them to achieve it. Likewise, men are moulded to want to possess women who embody this mythical form of beauty.

But, of course, it’s all a con, dear reader. Not only is this beauty myth not fixed (which makes it unachievable), it’s actually designed with a more sinister purpose in mind: to distract women from the pursuit of sexual equality by focusing their minds on a ‘cult of domesticity’ and the pursuit of this (impossible) physical ideal.

The Beauty Myth Meets the Industrial Revolution

The first time I read this book, I clearly knew sod all about history 😂 because I totally glossed over the fact that much of Wolf’s argument rests on certain ideas about the 19th century. And while Wolf received criticism for some of her ideas and stats, nobody seems to have mentioned anything about the supposed history that this myth rests on.

It goes like this:

“The Beauty Myth, in its modern form, is a fairly recent invention … It gained ground after the upheavals of industrialization, as the work unit of the family was destroyed, and urbanization and the emerging factory system demanded what social engineers of the time termed the “separate sphere” of domesticity, which supported the new labor category of the “breadwinner” who left home for work during the day.” (p. 14).

There are other (historical) aspects to her argument but because we haven’t got all week to talk about it, let’s focus on that point: the idea of ‘separate spheres.’

Women, Men and Separate Spheres

Wolf argues that the Industrial Revolution created this new ideology called separate spheres. Simply, this is the idea that society is divided into two parts: the private sphere (the home, family, etc) and the public sphere (work and politics, that sort of thing). Of course, this isn’t an actual, tangible separation. Think of it as a metaphor.

What’s key about separate spheres ideology is how it relates to gender. Wolf (and many, many historians) argued that middle-class women came to be associated with the private sphere while middle-class men dominated the public. In turn, this creates very rigid gender roles that emphasise women’s “natural” caring natures, ideal for the home, while men’s “natural” leadership qualities made them perfect for the public worlds of business and politics.

Sounds about right, yeah?

Well, maybe not.

Not-So-Separate Spheres?

This ideology of separate spheres was very much in vogue with historians for decades but around the time that Wolf wrote this book, the concept started to be challenged. What exactly is the “private sphere,” anyway? Because plenty of historians couldn’t actually agree. And as we all know, many women worked and took part in political activism. And how did separate spheres relate (if at all) to working-class people who didn’t have the financial means to idealise the home and hearth? Because if it doesn’t relate to them, then surely they’re immune to the myth’s influence? (This one is still turning over in my mind).

What it really comes down to is expectations vs. reality. Just because society tells you to behave a certain way, it doesn’t mean people actually did. (If that were true, I wouldn’t be writing my book because I wouldn’t have anyone to write about).

And we also have to think carefully about how Wolf defines the “Industrial Revolution.” She talks about it in the context of “the Western world” but did every single ‘Western’ nation have an identical experience of industrialisation? Not at all. I mean, just take a look at the U.S., for example. They had two ‘revolutions,’ not one. How might those differences impact American women versus, say, the English or French?

But You Should Still Read ‘The Beauty Myth’

You should, though. It’s a great book that will resonate on many levels. In re-reading it, I had zero intention of unpicking her argument, but I think we do all women a disservice when we reduce them to the sum of expectations. That stands as much for dead women as live ones.

And it’s also important for new thinking about old ideas to be as accessible as possible. While separate spheres once stood unchallenged, that is no longer the case.

As an aside, I saw an interview clip with Andrew Tate last week in which he was talking about going back to “traditional gender roles,” and I couldn’t help but think to myself, what he needs is a history lesson. So often, these high-profile misogynists are harking back to days that never existed in the way they want them to. And I reckon that if I asked them to (authentically) situate those roles in a specific historical reality, not one of them could do it.

But I can’t really see Andrew Tate et al being game for a dressing down from a woman. Can you? 😂😂😂😂😂😂


Anyway, on that tangential bombshell,

I’ll see ye next week,

Kaye x


P.S. Thanks for voting in last week’s poll. A staggering 88% of you said Mary Howson should go in the book, so in she has gone!