FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-Ii-5-AUGUST-1995
Item
- Title
- FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-Ii-5-AUGUST-1995
- extracted text
-
BEAUTY AND BEAUTY CONTEST
MYTHS (Part II)
e
comment
...the ideal offemale beauty has been defined in India in
charming aphorisms...Her actual life...has been less than
the metaphorical ideal and more sordid...(She) has some
times been exalted as a goddess but mostly... oppressed...
Brahmins have succeeded in exterminating the primordial
instinct for emotive love... ”
-Mulk Raj Anand "The Book of Indian Beauty", 1993.
...Few myths have been more advantageous to the ruling
caste than the myths ofwoman: itjustifies all privileges and
even authorises their abuse...”
-Simone de Beauvoir "The Second Sex”
“Beauty Contests” today have become global in their reach
and impact mushrooming in various countries around the
world. Significantly, the venues for these events have shifted
puntries inthe South including the former Socialist coun5 where they had been considered an anachronism.
■
The origins of ‘beauty contests’ go back to the 'Miss
America1 contest-the first such competition-established in
1921. In India, its avatar was in the "Miss Indti' contest
established in the 60s and have since proliferated, being
given an added boost by the victories of Sushmita Sen and
Aishwarya Rai. Their victories have enhanced the status of
such competitions, completely out of proportion and in
total disregard to existing socio-cultural events of far greater
relevance.
These competitions are basically high-profile publicity cam
paigns of the corporate sector and foreign TNCs to boost
the sale of their products. As such, they are package deals
propagated by major ad agencies hand-in-glove with these
corporate enterprises marketing various products of the
‘beauty industry’ (cosmetics, jewelry, diet books, weight
reducing programmes etc.) and also services 'appropriately'
provided by the ‘feminine touch’ (airlines, hotels, tours, etc.)
Over the years as a result of protests and demonstrations
the organisers and promoters of ‘beauty contests’ in the
West have been forced to re-name these competitions as
“beauty pageants” a euphemism aimed at mitigating the
harshness of the expression ‘competition’ or ‘contests’; for
contests are what victors impose upon the losers. In India,
such campaigns have led to a peculiar situation similar to the
current issue on personal laws. From time-to-time progres
sive groups are shoulder-to-shoulder with right-wing ele
ments advocating obnoxious behavioral norms for women
in the name of defending the.so-called Bharatiya nari and
Bharatiya sanscriti which often is a repressive form of
Victorianism confused as “Indian womanhood” and “Indian
culture”.’
A pernicious aspect of these contests is that they provide
the export ofcultural ly-specific notions ofbeauty that women
everywhere are expected to meet-a white Caucasian stan
dard. Such a criterion is an idealising, elitist obsession with
passive perfection. It is a notion of beauty as it is perceived
in the West but which the local elites in the country happily
mimic. The concept totally negates the relevance of
recognising the diverse notions of beauty in other cultures
-ofwhat is considered beautiful. But those behind such commercial ventures are least bothered about celebrating such
elements ofdiversity. As ploys of the ‘beauty industry’ these
competitions therefore are in the business of reducing hopes
and aspirations to easily marketable formulae, so they tend
to address surface or superficial concerns. They have to
establish ideal shapes
sizes and skin types^
so that they have
easily identifi
able, yardsticks
against which to
judge their prod
ucts. Naturally,
these competi
tions emphasize
just one element-the look-
Aug '95
FACTS against
FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION ONLY
Page 1
through the promotion of the so-called physical ideal rather
than a holistic view-to look at the whole-body, soul and
mind. Ultimately, the bottom line is that the promotion of
such ‘beauty ideals’ serve as convenient ploys for con
verting people in the South into avid patrons of their prod
ucts that originate in the US, France or Japan.
Further, the cult of beauty that “beauty contests” project,
leads to other anomalies — that of consumerism, the hedo
nistic way of life. It serves as an ideological tool of the
ruling blocks “new economic policy” and liberalisation pro
cess, to perform a positive role in extending the consump
tion of goods so as to further the process of “economic
growth with justice” in the so-called market economy.
Finally, the victories of Sushmita and Aishwarya are very
disturbing in that unwittingly they have revived some of
the worst myths and fallacies on what constitutes Indian
womanhood especially at the time when right-wrong com
munal forces like the VHP and Sangh Parivar are on the
ascendance and who, reportedly in Honiara Mahanagar
(31-5-1995) were in Seventh Heaven over the victories and
statements these women made on Indian culture and Indian
womanhood. Their fallacious statements demonstrated that
these shows are not only paternalistic but also tools in
propagating the feminine cult-beautification, child-rearing,
house-keeping and the
culinary
*
skills-and hammering in
images of feminine beauty that the ad media readily exploits
with the sales pitch: be like Sushmita or Aishwarya! “Beauty
contests” thus aid in moulding and reinforcing images of
women’s view of themselves and their place in society. In
the Indian context, this is all the more damaging as in a
caste-driven, male-defined society the concept of feminine
beauty is ideological in that it is a ‘high caste’, Brahaminic
one and as such ‘vama’ connected. (Draft Manifesto of the
Mahasabha ofjoint Dalit-Adivasi Rural Literature, cited in
Frontier, September 24,1988.) The meaning of Rama and
Krishna is black; they and Draupadi were black but were
nevertheless considered beautiful. Otherwise the colour
considered beautiful by them was white. Vasishtha
Dharmasutra (op.cit) lays down that the black coloured Sudra
or non-Aryan woman called Rama is only meant for enjoy
ment. The high-caste conception of beauty having emerged
out of non-productivity, conceived a beautiful woman as
white and delicate. Against this, the Sudra conception of
beauty having emerged out of productivity visualises a
beautiful woman as brown (syama) or dark and sturdy.
(op.cit)
In conclusion “beauty contests” need to be necessarily
viewed critically-beyond its supposedly innocuous form of
mass entertainment. There is nothing conspiratorial about
these events, but neither are they innocent. It is necessary
to demystify it and situate the “beauty contest” to the more
pertinent socio-cultural events issues and processes oc
curring in our society.
MYTH:
The main purpose of beauty pageants like Miss
India or Miss Universe etc., is to select the
year's 'most beautiful woman'.
FACT:
Apparently, this is the real aim. The main purpose,however,
is to boost the sale of products of the mega firms sponsor
ing these competitions. They are primarily publicity and
sales promotion strategies: excellent merchandising vehicles.
The Femina Miss India ’95 beauty contests, for instance
was sponsored by MNCs like Bausch & Lomb, Phillips,
and Lakme, among others to promote Ray-Ban sunglasses,
electronic products and cosmetics, etc,. For the promoto^
Femina, it is an opportunity to boost its circulation
collect advertising revenue. They are thus extremely profit
able ventures. Proof of the pudding: new “beauty contests”
are spawned all the time. Some of the newest being Lady
Universe 1995, Queen ofthe World 1995 and Femina Look
of the Year 1995. And in a large ‘country like India the
cosmetic market among the new' middle class women is a
potential ‘ El Dorado’ with the real possibility of even a
boom in “cosmetic surgery”!!
The beauty contestants and the actual winner, the “beauty'
queen”, on the other hand is no more than the promoter’s
advertising tool, a vital component of the whole advertising
campaign. On winning the title, the winner is virtually turned
into a commercial product, used and sold very much like a
pre-packaged Pond’s make-up face-pack. Former Miss Uni
verse, Sushmita Sen, was performing precisely this role in
New Delhi on August 31 for the American TNC, Apple
Computers. Thus “Beauty' Queens” like Sen and Rai even
tually wind up largely as pawns of the “beauty contests”to carry out the sponsors subtle, commercial aims. The TT^k
Pepsi hired both of them to boost their sales soon after they
were awarded the “beauty crown”. In using “celebrities’’ in
this way the sponsors succeed in persuading the gullible- to
flavoured and coloured sugar-water-costing them no more
than a few paise - at Rs 6.
The owners of Miss Universe who awarded their title to
Sushmita Sen who are in India reportedly stated (Economic
Times; 23-9-94) that a beauty queen like Sen is employed
by them on an allowance of $50,000 to represent their
company throughout the world; She generates revenue to
Miss Universe Incorporated (MUI) by travelling, doing
commercials, personal appearances and speeches. Their
representative, Martin Brooks, could well be throwing a
bait when he stated that India could be the venue for the
1996 Miss Universe contest and therefore “see” another
winner (U)provided that India foots the location bill ofaround
Rs 4 to 6 crores.
FACTS against MYTHS
Aug '95
Page 2
Mrm
that reduces beauty in terms of ranked lists; the so-called
attempt to (ultimately) make scientific sense of the Evil
Queen’s mirror-to determine, once and for all, who really is
the ‘fairest of them all’. That is, if the opinions of a panel of
somehow-reliable judges can be combined, the aggregate
will represent ‘the fairest of them all’!
Using an objective set of criteria or a
.recognised set of standards including a fair
representation of experienced luminaries from
the world of art, culture, humanities, among
others, it is possible to select the most beautiful
woman, in the country or world. Beauty
pageants are proof enough.
One can,’according to this logic, quantify beauty and deter
mine a rank-order, with 50 contestants, 10 semi-finalists, 5
finalists, and the I true ‘most’; To illustrate,
FACT
•
In the Miss America contest the standard employed is
a 1 00- point body breakdown. The “judges” allot 12
points for shape of the head; 10 points for eyes; 5 points
for hair, 10 points for facial expression and so on and so
forth !
•
For the Miss World competition the owners, Eric and
Julia Morley include what he calls the “basic material”:
pubescent girls aged between 17 and 25, ideally 5' 7!4”,
8 to 9 stone, waist 22-24", hips 35-36", “no more, no
less”, good teeth, plenty of hair and perfectly shaped
legs from front and back-carefully checked for “such
defects as slightly knocked kneed”!!
©
In other such contests the rule of the thumb prevails.
That is, a 35” bustline, with a shoulder dip of20°; a slim
tapering waist, hips larger than the breasts!
•
In the so-called state of the art technology, computers
are also becoming arbiters in judging the ‘most’ beauti
ful woman! It involves the judges’ preferences for each
contestant, in each sub-category’ (interview, swimsuit,
talent). These are fed into the computers which totals
the results and presents them to the TV audience on a
scale of I to 10, to 2 decimal places. But all the results of
each individual contest are swept aside in the final overall
judging, so that its not clear what all the quantification
is supposed to achieve!?
A universally recognisable prototype of a woman’s beauty
does not exist. Even though a Caucasian can with some
training, learn to recognise some Indian or Zimbabwean
types as ‘beautiful’, these ‘exotic’ representations have to
conform to the Caucasian type than to the norm of their
own race. This argues against a universal standard “since
we are obviously appealing to the ideals of a specific racial
group, in terms of its own singular traits”.
Unlike height, or speed, beauty cannot realistically be ob
jectified and quantified. Partly, this is because beauty is
only partly physical or objectively observable. The tremor
i^^smile, the twinkle in an eye-these cannot be measured
and weighed against someone else’s,2 as someone with
blacker hair or fatter waist can be determined.
Beauty is a combination of too many different kinds ofsub
jective decisions for one to be able to repch a definition,
much less general agreement about who, or what combina
tion ofcharacteristics meet that criterion. (oj5.cit) Even other
relative terms-like ‘tali’- can be specifically defined, and a
standard of comparison established that is unambiguous
and satisfactory to everyone. Negotiation is possible, on
'intellectual grounds. But feminine beauty is not like that.
Beauty of the human form is not only a subjective phenom
ena but different from person to person and an individual’s
judgment cannot be ‘proved’ right or wrong. If Sushmita is
considered taller than Aishwarya and Manpreet refutes that,
the issue can be resolved by bringing both the girls to
gether, measuring them, and having recourse to a chart of
average female heights. If there are, however, differences of
opinion over the perceived beauty of these girls, no reasonargument is possible.
A “beauty contest” therefore cannot be objectively arbi
trated. The winner, Sushmita or Aishwarya, merely attracts
the largest number of subjective preferences.
MYTH
Feminists and others holding 'dharnas',
'gheraos', etc., against beauty pageants are
an ugly, disgruntled lot. They are simply unable
to provide any convincing explanation to their
knee-jerk opposition.
FACT
Feminists and others are neither against “beauty contests”
per se nor are they against the young contestants. Opposi
tion is primarily against the basic premises on which these
so-called beauty contests are conceived, promoted and
soldi. For instance, their critique is against the absurd at
tempt to judge feminine beauty by a quantifying method
Mocking women as “ugly feminists” is an ideological ploy.
It helps in devaluing not only the process of aging but also
older women thereby eradicating women power. It performs
the crucial task of cutting the links between generation of
women and assuring that power is not passed on. It intimi
dates young women from relating with their older sisters,
thereby preventing the transmission of authority.
Many women today deliberately choose to be “ugly’’ sim
ply because it helps in deflecting unruly stares from men or
their sexist, vulgar remarks; to even avoid die danger Of a
sexual assault.
The point is how can beauty be quantified and ranked in
this way if so many variables - some by popular testimony,
not even visible upon surface inspection, even in a bathing
suit - are involved? Not to mention nagging doubts about
the authority ofjudges, who are selected, typically, from the
world of fashion, show business, modeling and ad agen
cies, film industry and cosmetics, and the previous Miss
World or Miss India contests? Who determines feminine
beauty? And, why is there the attempt to select the ‘most’
in this category - all virtues as abstract and open to contro
versy as beauty?.
Opposition to these competitions also stem from Be real
Aug *95
FACTS against MYTHS
Page 3
1
threat they represent-of converting a genuinely noble value
into a cult and a fetish, precipitating unfounded consumer
ist desires and false wants; and fanning baseless anxieties
and fears specially among women to be constantly obsessed
with their looks.
The cult of beauty that “beauty contests” are so much a
part of also leads to a complex psychological problem, a
form of narcissistic obsession which Bartky3 calls the fashion-beauty complex’: the reverent and self-absorbed plea
sures of the mirror, the other interiorised self. It is this ‘
fashion-beauty complex’ according to her which also con
trol the conditions under which false needs are met.
According to Bartky, “false needs” are needs which are
produced through indoctrination, psychological manipula
tion, and the denial of autonomy; they are needs whose
possession and satisfaction benefit not the subject who
has them but a social order whose interest lies in domina
tion. The price extracted for the satisfaction of repressive
needs is high, for guilt, shame and obsessional states of
consciousness accompany the repressive satisfactions al
lowed (women) by the ‘fashion beauty complex’. Repres
sive narcissistic satisfaction is a stumbling block to the
emergence of a genuine delight in the human physique,
too: The woman unable to leave her home in the morning
without putting on make-up will always fail to discover the
beauty, character, and expressiveness she already has.
Moreover, the various images of femininity that “beauty
contest” project, work in egging women to indulge in higher
and higher levels of consumption of beauty products and
devices. The beauty industry constantly tell woman to be
obsessed with her appearances transforming her into a
‘Panoptican’, a self-policing subject; a self committed to a
relentless self-surveillance, a form of obedience to patriar
chy, subject to collaborating in her own subjection (Bartky)
HfLLOf... SUN city?!
TN** TEAR WE |NT£NO
TO GRAB THE JHViAN
MARKET,.. SO THE
CROWN GOES TO
AN INDIAN JI
GOT IT I??
fashion jewelry and designer wear, etc, have enormous sway
both financially and politically; with the government being
soft and patronising towards their investments deals. In
return, the tokenism and flattery of the beauty award is
made to that particular country’s beauty “Queen”. That is,
a reward for the “free and fair economic policies” pursued
by the governments ofthese countries. When Latin America
had been identified as the boom continent there were sud
denly a number of winners of various beauty contests-in
Brazil, Venezuela, Costa Rica, etc. Today, it is India’s turn as
the latest recipient of such a “largess” with two successive
winners in a row and almost a third (Manpreet Brar) who
was a runner-up to this years Miss Universe contest. A
former “Miss India” to a “Miss Universe" contest in the 80s
reportedly observed:
“What happens is that the organisers indirectly tell
you that America is important that year, for political
reasons, or that Thailand at the moment is politically
more important. They don’t directly tell you to choose
a particular person ”.
The media, the contest officials, etc., use the trick ofplayu^
up a particular beauty contestant. Thus the media mar^F
ers, hand in glove with contest officials, and organisers,
etc., ascertain which competitor “is acceptable” and artifi
cially manufacture the “winner”
Finally, the opposition to “beauty contests” is also because
in societies like India such extravagant beauty events de
tract women from real gut issues ofgreater relevance proper
birth-control and health facilities, better AlDs prevention
measures and programmes, denial ofcivil liberties and demo
cratic rights etc.
MYTH
Sushmita and Aishwarya have done our country
proud! The magnificent way they represented
India at the Miss Universe and Miss World
contests showed the world what our women
can achieve and the status of Indian
womanhood! Truly they both are our countries
cultural ambassadors and role models for our
youth!
FACT
This is one of the many such saccharine-sweet encomiums
that have gushed out by the votaries of “beauty contests”
on ’’Indian womanhood”, etc.
fWORlP COSMETICS INC
Finally, objections are also over the pernicious, political
aspects that these contests sometimes are linked with viz,
the nexus between the declaration of the “winner” of the
“beauty contest” and the market for the products of the
beauty industry. Very often the selection of the winner is
influenced by the sponsor’s eyes on the vast market of
these and other related products in the country the “com
petition” is staged. That is, the winner is ultimately one who
hails from a country where TNCs dealing in cosmetics, high
FACTS against f&YTHS
A random illustration of incidents from the recent past how
ever, will show how women in India, in reality, are treated.
•
•
•
the blood-curdling murder of Naina Saini
the mental and physical abuse of Radhika (Nehru) Tikoo
the stripping and torture of an expectant mother, Kamla,
22, of Parlika in Rajasthan
• the naked parade and humiliation of Usha Dhiman of
Saharanpur in full view of the local bazaar, adjacent to
the police station and a court,
• the acid assault on a 19 year old collegian, Deepti
Khanna, at the Juhu bus stop, disfiguring and blinding
her in one eye.
Aug *95
Page 4
Radhika Tikoo’s case is typical of what a large number of
women undergo in the name of marital bliss. Most women
do not see beyond the 'mata-devi' syndrome and will suf
fer in silence, allowing themselves to either be burned to
death quietly after years of misery. Many also try, even on
their death-beds, to protect their husbands pretending to
the very end that they took their own lives or burned them
selves accidentally.
One index ofhow women are treated in India is the sex-ratio.
(In India, it is the number of females per 1000 males, while in
non-Asian countries it is the number of males per 1000
females). With the exception of Kerala, the sex-ratio has
been a declining over the decades-from 970 in 1901 to 927 in
1991; when males figures are indexed (as per the Human
Development Report 1994) at 100, females stand at 93 in
population; 55 in literacy; 34 on years of schooling and 42
on labour force.
ably coached by Femina - these “beauty queens” have
nothing to qualify as role models. At 18 years and lacking in
maturity and even in a graduate degree how can they be
expected to have achieved things that will inspire a whole
new generation? On the contrary, these women have unwit
tingly aided in precipitating a Westward ho ' movement that
will eventually lead to the same mania with the body beau
tiful’ as in the West, and a life devoted to trivia. These range
from one extreme of Indian women being influenced by or
thodox values to die other extreme ofa Western materialistic
weltangschuang. ‘ Rather than being representatives of a
new breed of cosmopolitan and intelligent Indian woman
these women actually serve in graphically highlighting the
widening gulf between the Westernised elite and the mass
of neglected and subjugated Indian women. The life of the
average Indian woman is characterised by systematic dis
crimination in all walks of life. Victories at beauty contests
only succeeds camouflaging the plight of such women.
MYTH
"Women in India have now became aware of
their rights......(and) the origin of the child is
a mother and is woman.....who shows a man
what love and sharing and curing is all about"
-Sushmita Sen at the finals of Miss Universe 1994
FACT
SOUPCE. VWV£CM 1 57
According to Lalita Panicker in the Sunday Times (27.11.94),
the plight of the underprivileged has proved to be as much
a winning card for these ‘-beauty queens” as their perfect
vital statistics and dazzling good looks. The following fig
ures however of the awesome extent of deprivation of that
most underprivileged class, women, demonstrate the false
promises these pageants are:
• Every 7 minutes a crime is committed against a woman;
• Every 26 minutes a woman is molested;
• Every 56 minutes a woman is raped;
Every I hour and 42 minutes a dowry-death takes place.
Besides socio- economic and religious taboos have kept
Indian woman out of the decision making process and will
continue to do so since only 39.42 % of women were found
literate at the last count.
The projected ratio of men to women by the turn of the
century is a depressing 500 million males to 480 million
females. With the spread of modem techniques like amnio
centesis, the elimination of the female child even before it is
bom has been made much simpler and cheaper, (refer to
Facts Against Myths, Issue #3,1995 Myth ofSex Determi
nation Test by Mr. R.P. Ravindra Of this Publication)
Even more invidious is the attempt to portray these “beauty
queens” not only as socially committed achievers but as
the New Indian Woman and as role models for young
women.
Apart from having made a politically correct answer-prob-
FACTS against MYTHS
The reference to “Women in India”, merely addresses one
section ofthe urban middle class, including Sen herself! Her
statement is in illustration of pop feminism in which Sen
evidently did not find the need to challenge male-defined
gender-roles. Women still need to be perfect housewives
and perform the double (patriarchal) task of home/work as a
symbol oftheir power, while men just watch T.V. etc. most of
the time, without sharing in her domestic burdens.
Sen urges women to show greater self-confidence and selfdetermination, another illustration of pop feminism. She
however hastened to add that she’s not prodding women to
be feminists but that “...Men are important. It is important to
give man his respect. But you must know what you want
and get it” !! Her homily betrays an ignorance typical of
anti-feminism including Lakme-feminists distressed with the
fallacy that feminism means rendering man redundant and
disrespecting them rather than recognising feminism as de
mand for equal rights and justice.
Typical of her pop feminism, however, Sen also contradicts
herself by referring to Mother Teresa as a perfect illustra
tion of “a person who is totally selfless, devoted and un
conditional’ -qualities that a patriarchal order appreciate; to
keep women domesticated.
The worst thing she uttered was, ironically, Or typically,
what awarded her the beauty crown, on the question, what
“the essence” of a women is. Sen responded with the most
damaging tropes of patriarchy-of maternity, and women as
nurturer and protector with the rider: “The origin of the
child is a mother and is a woman.
A woman is one who shows a man what love and sharing
and caring is all about?” Sen suddenly seemed to forget her
Aug '95
Page 5
t
urging women to assert
themselves. 1
tile. Once again the unseen boundary of class operates
Bagchi states (op.cit)
These responses by Sen
on aspects of Indian
womanhood is one of
the major elements of
the dominant myths
about womanhood, viz.,
a woman’s identification
with the domestic sphere
and the consequent
blocking out of a social
valuation of her work.
According to Prof. J.
Bagchi4 of the School of
Women’s Studies, Jadavpur University the ‘sexual division
of labour’ is itself a myth that helps devalue women’s work
as merely reproductive rather than productive. The myth
perpetuates the belief that women are naturally, hence in
variably the child bearers and child rearers. Whatever work
can be accommodated into the pattern of child bearing and
child rearing is conceded to women as paid work whereas
the observed reality is that it is childbearing and child-rear
ing, that has to fit into women’s work.
IMPIAN
Sen’s reference to Mother Teresa illustrates another pre
vailing myth ofwomanhood - the false image ofwoman as a
long-suffering, chaste, self-sacrificing superwoman.
Mythcentred pop media in tandem with religious beliefs
valorize and sanctify the unequal behavior pattern between
the sexes. That sanctification in turn breeds popular myths
clamping the lives of women. The drudgery of every-day
life makes women cling to popular notions of men as bread
winners, leading to an over-valuation of male children, and
a craving for marriage as the only security-generating so
cial institution. The lived reality of their lives contradicts
these myths at every point. It renders their work socially
less valued, their marriages fragile and treatment of their girl
children, who happen to be their best support system, hos
Facts Against Myths is a monthly
bulletin of factual information on
a number of development myths
and fallacies, etc, including infor
mation against alien development
models, paradigms and false con
cepts on caste, creed and gender.
Produced and Published by:
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra (VAK)
D-l, Shivdham, 62, Link Road,
Malad (W), Bombay 400 064
4 Si
882 2850 and 889 8662
Fax No. (0091 )-22-889 8941
DTP Layout & Graphics by
Indian Ink
(S?
Telefax 643 8581
The middle-class leisured woman like Sen and Rai with all
their leisured consumerism, provides them with a fantasy of
freedom, however, ‘ mythical * it might be.
Finally, Sen’s paeans to Indian motherhood is no longer a
source of women’s power that it once was viz., womans
procreative role which today has rendered her powerless,
e. specially subject to male domination. Perceived as a
i.
field in possession of the owner of seed (read semen), “a
woman’s motherhood renders her specially susceptible to
male control and domination. Deprived of minimum safety
nets such as nourishment, safe birthing, adequate ante na
tal care, child care facilities, motherhood renders working
Indian women, specially in poor rural areas, extremely vul
nerable. State sponsored incentives to motherhood both as
ideology and material help are also questioned as patriar
chal, denying women the ability to render motherhood as
materially empowering”, (op.cit)
Acknowledgment
fk
We are most grateful to Mr.RP. Nene for the material on
beauty contests andfor the suggestions in preparing it.
References
I. Kishwar, M.”When India”Missed” the Universe”,Manushi,#
88,New Delhi 1995.
2. Wolf.N.’The Beauty Myth”,Vinlage,London,1992
3. Bartky,S.L .’’Feminity and Domination”, Routledge, New York,
. 1990.
4. Bagchi,J .(Ed),Indian Women: Myth and Reality,Sangam Books,
Bombay, 1995
5. Tolmach,R, (et al), Face Value: The Politics of Beauty”, Bos
ton. 1984
6. Clark,K., “Feminine Beauty”, Weidenfeld & Nicolsen
Ltd.,London, ’80
7. Chapkis, W. “Beauty Secrets AVomen & Politics of Appear
ance”, South-End Press, Boston, 1986
8. Beauty Contests: “The Myth, the Mystique & the
Cult”,Background Paper # 6, BUILD Documentation Centre,
Bombay, 1986.
9. Rodricks, L.M.’The Beauty Contest Cult”, ClarityJanuary 7February 18,Bombay, 1978.
Printed Matter
BOOK POST
Position: 4374 (2 views)