On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Liza Featherstone wrote:
> I really don't see anything wrong with it either. Within reason, attempting
> to look a little better is respectful and courteous to our loved ones, and
> to the world at large. And in the ugly landscape that is much of America,
> often the only way to maintain some aesthetic standard in one's daily life.
>
>
> Liza
This assumes that the standards of "better" are benign, natural products of good sense. On the contrary: the beauty standards are a product of a complex array of socioeconomic and political forces. For instance: the medicalization of "baldness" in men. This is presented as a medical condition on many TV commercials, and I know young men who consider losing their hair as the worst thing that could happen to them (short of their balls falling off). People spend huge amounts of money to have hair on their head so they "look better". This just seems ludricious to me (maybe because I'm bald as a cue ball, but not just that).
Why are do so many people in our society consider male pattern baldness an aberration that requires medical intervention? Gotta go vulgar Marxist on this one: massive profits to be made by making people feel insecure and ugly. Same logic applies to cosmetic surgery, age-defying creams, hair removal, etc., etc. Instead of noncritically accepting the existing, socially determined beauty standards, why can't we create new ones? There is nothing natural or necessary about fashion and style: it's just what we think is cool, and we can make up whatever standards we want. (As I write, it occurs to me this is analogous to Marx's argument about religion: we worship what we ourselves have created, having forgotten we created it in the first place!)
In short: fuck the style police.
Miles