Analysis Of Anti-Beauty Myth 'And Taking Beauty's Measure'

“Anti-Beauty Myth” by Christine Rosen and “Taking Beauty’s Measure” by Rachel Shteir are articles from Commentary Magazine and Chronicle of Higher Education respectively. Both articles are resistant to the anti-beauty claims made by feminist writers. “Anti-beauty myth” discusses why people are still beauty conscious despite feminist efforts to punish over-emphasis on beauty while “Taking Beauty’s Measure” believes beauty should be desired rather than being ostracised. Even though both writers draw attention to the plausible flaws of the feminists’ claims, Christine Rosen, in “Anti-beauty myth”, provides an alternative perspective of beauty to supplement her arguments. Thus, it renders her argument stronger and more versatile.

Both “Anti-Beauty
…show more content…
(Shteir para 12) Infomercials are slightly biased in nature as they are selling the idea of the author therefore these anti-beauty claims may not be credible. Shteir also talks about Rhode’s character as being one who views beauty in a way that lacks any sense of humor (Shteir para 21) and whom does not seem to get off campus much. (Shteir para 22) It is likely that the environment Rhode is exposed to affected and led to her peculiar perception of beauty.

In “The Anti-Beauty Myth”, Rhode seeks to extend civil rights law to include discrimination based on looks and supports her argument by denying the fact that a small number of these cases would not overwhelm the already overburdened legal system. (Rosen para 3)
However, Rosen questioned her argument by disputing that lookism may not be as prevalent if the number of cases were so small. (Rosen para 4)

In “The Anti-Beauty Myth”, Rosen believes Rhode is not credible because her arguments display hostility towards women whose political beliefs do not agree with her own. For example, she leaves out information of Michelle Obama and Gloria Steinem pursuing beauty but only brings it up for Sarah Palin, saying she pays her make up artist more than her foreign policy advisor. (Rosen para 5) Someone who leaves out information in order to strengthen their argument or weaken the opposing cannot be considered
…show more content…
Rosen distinguishes the difference between natural beauty and grooming. She supports grooming activities such as “coloring, or marking the lips, hands, nails, eyes, and face” because it “denotes the status and role of the person in relationship to some audience”, benefiting those who seek to improve their appearances. (Para 11) Natural beauty, on the other hand, is “what we are granted, through no effort of our own, at birth” and it is not something that we can alter. (Para 11) This clear distinction suggests that the feminists writers’ perception of beauty is just grooming, which is why Rhodes’ disapproves of both “Sarah Palin’s makeup expert” (Para 5) and Estee Lauder’s quote that “there are no homely women, only careless women”. This implies that Rhodes does not believe in the use of makeup to boost one’s appearance. Rosen approves of grooming because it helps to compensate for the lack of natural beauty and acts as “a powerful sign of personal identity”. (Para 12) This is a clear indication that she disagrees with the feminist writers’ anti-beauty

Related Documents