Scan barcode
A review by tashtonnes
Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West by Sheila Jeffreys
3.0
Honestly regardless of the ideology this was such an amazing reading experience. I was googling things (if anyone is tracing my internet usage and history I'm sorry for the ... alarming searches), having a perpetual internal debate and pacing around my room thinking about this book and my own opinions
I really adored that the writing style for this book was so simple and straightforward which allows your time and focus to be devoted to the actual content, rather than having to google obscure jargon- yet as an academic work it still cited sources frequently and correctly
Soo, this is a work of radical feminism so naturally there were tonnes of things I agreed with... and tonnes that I.. did not agree with
The book focuses around beauty practices in the West (obviously). Jeffreys asserts that beauty practices in the West (and more or less everywhere else) all stem from male oppression. Beauty practices are used to create and assert sexual differences between men and women (also look I feel like Jeffreys was perpetually conflating sex and gender but whatever). This is done to 'other' women, to identify them and mould them into a submissive sex (gender). Beauty practices are not only used to subdue women but also to reduce them to sexual objects. So beauty practices are driven by male sexuality and male fetishes. This is seen through the impact that prostitution has upon beauty standards and practices. Beauty practices have become evermore extreme and constraining as women continue to obtain 'more' rights. The beauty practices are used to reassure men of their ever dominant status over women. Jeffreys equates beauty practices in the West to what the UN defines as harmful cultural practices. These harmful beauty practices in the West have been exacerbated by the free market, capitalism, postmodernism, the sexual revolution/liberation and the West's continual refusal to acknowledge its own culture, and that it in fact does possess culture. Postmodern ideologies and liberal feminists have asserted that it is a woman's right to be able to choose to engage in sexual (gendered) practices, as these practices are no longer or never were innately linked to male dominance. Jeffreys argues that the practices that these women 'choose' to engage in are innately damaging and patriarchal and in fact women do not possess the freedom to choose these practices. Western culture of male dominance compels them to perform these harmful acts of femininity. So Jeffreys calls for the UN to ban western beauty practices, for women to stop performing them and for sexual difference (gender) to be abolished.
Ok so this is the watered down gist of what is a very extreme and opinionated book.. I haven't touched upon chapter three which discusses trans people and as Jeffreys wants to abolish sex (gender) .. it's not a very trans inclusive chapter. So I mean.. there are lots of #problematic aspects to this book. Although I think those aspects were part of what made it such an interesting reading experience for me, as there were things that I agreed with, and things that I did not. When the things that I disagreed with were logical extensions of what I did agree with I had to stop and seriously think if Jeffreys' logic was wrong, or if I actually did agree or disagree with her. So I think I'll be doing a lot of soul searching for a while (esp. about the concept of choice)
I really adored that the writing style for this book was so simple and straightforward which allows your time and focus to be devoted to the actual content, rather than having to google obscure jargon- yet as an academic work it still cited sources frequently and correctly
Soo, this is a work of radical feminism so naturally there were tonnes of things I agreed with... and tonnes that I.. did not agree with
The book focuses around beauty practices in the West (obviously). Jeffreys asserts that beauty practices in the West (and more or less everywhere else) all stem from male oppression. Beauty practices are used to create and assert sexual differences between men and women (also look I feel like Jeffreys was perpetually conflating sex and gender but whatever). This is done to 'other' women, to identify them and mould them into a submissive sex (gender). Beauty practices are not only used to subdue women but also to reduce them to sexual objects. So beauty practices are driven by male sexuality and male fetishes. This is seen through the impact that prostitution has upon beauty standards and practices. Beauty practices have become evermore extreme and constraining as women continue to obtain 'more' rights. The beauty practices are used to reassure men of their ever dominant status over women. Jeffreys equates beauty practices in the West to what the UN defines as harmful cultural practices. These harmful beauty practices in the West have been exacerbated by the free market, capitalism, postmodernism, the sexual revolution/liberation and the West's continual refusal to acknowledge its own culture, and that it in fact does possess culture. Postmodern ideologies and liberal feminists have asserted that it is a woman's right to be able to choose to engage in sexual (gendered) practices, as these practices are no longer or never were innately linked to male dominance. Jeffreys argues that the practices that these women 'choose' to engage in are innately damaging and patriarchal and in fact women do not possess the freedom to choose these practices. Western culture of male dominance compels them to perform these harmful acts of femininity. So Jeffreys calls for the UN to ban western beauty practices, for women to stop performing them and for sexual difference (gender) to be abolished.
Ok so this is the watered down gist of what is a very extreme and opinionated book.. I haven't touched upon chapter three which discusses trans people and as Jeffreys wants to abolish sex (gender) .. it's not a very trans inclusive chapter. So I mean.. there are lots of #problematic aspects to this book. Although I think those aspects were part of what made it such an interesting reading experience for me, as there were things that I agreed with, and things that I did not. When the things that I disagreed with were logical extensions of what I did agree with I had to stop and seriously think if Jeffreys' logic was wrong, or if I actually did agree or disagree with her. So I think I'll be doing a lot of soul searching for a while (esp. about the concept of choice)