Lazarus species and my anti-polemic polemic

While reading an article about The Incredible Tahakē Story, I learned about Lazarus species, which are species that were believed to be extinct but were later re-discovered. The tahakē is a bird from New Zealand that has the rare distinction of having been declared extinct twice, and then finally re-discovered in 1948, when efforts were undertaken to save the species. That sent me down a rabbit hole of Lazarus species (no pun intended). From this article about 12 such species, I learned about the Cuban Solenodon, which is one of the rare mammals to have venomous saliva, and the Lord Howe stick insects, which are sometimes called “land lobsters” or “walking sausages.” There are also worms that can grow to 3.3 feet long and dig 15 feet down. Finally, the Laotian rock rat, discovered in a wet market in 1996, had been believed to be extinct for 11 million years. There are hundreds of Lazarus species, and in my next life, I’d like to come back as a biologist to study them all.

Here's what I actually want to discuss today. I've had two good friends enthusiastically recommend The Anti-Cosmetic Surgery Essay Every Woman Should Read. Both women have already had to endure my rant about it, but I want to share my thoughts in greater depth. First of all, I want to thank the writer for concisely stating her position:

Let me clearly state my thesis: I believe one of the biggest existential threats to modern women is the beauty-industrial complex, that is the vast network of corporations that manufactures and sells us an endless slew of products, services, images and ideologies intended to destroy our self-worth for the benefit of shareholders.

Where to begin? For starters, this is just capitalism. And yes, I would rank capitalism as one of the biggest existential threats to humans. Maybe the biggest. Who knows.

But the beauty-industrial complex is a small fraction of that enormous machine, and she isn't tackling capital C Capitalism in this essay; she's reminding women that we don't have to accept the beauty standards that are generated by that "network of corporations." She asserts this view quite vigorously. I think the reason that this essay is being shared among my friends is because the tone of her writing is stronger than most denunciations of the "beauty-industrial complex," and it is refreshing to read a woman writing in a polemical style.

Still, I did not like this essay. Here was my initial reaction:

I'll be the contrarian (sort of) and say that I feel like her outrage is unwarranted or is at best tone deaf. Impossible beauty standards are not in fact the greatest threat to women: men are. Partner violence is the number one cause of death for pregnant women. The urge to do body modification in the way described here eludes me but at the end of the day, it's just an extreme form of gender-affirming surgery. My outrage right now is for the women who are being snatched up by ICE and the hundreds of thousands of women being pushed out of their decent-paying jobs by Russell Vought and AI.

After discussing it with the second friend who likes this essay, I realized that my objections ran much deeper. Not only are there far bigger threats to "women," I did not like her use of the word woman - the application of her critique on behalf of all "modern women." As though there is such a thing. It is not the case that all women feel subject to the demands of the beauty industrial complex. Old women, disabled women, women of color, women who opt out - many of these women know that they are not included in the target audience of the beauty-industrial complex, notwithstanding foundations in new skin tones and Dove's efforts to seem inclusive by having different sized women dance around in underwear. Many women are invisible to and inured to efforts to sell them beauty products, and this author's universalization of her own perception reinforces that othering. Her universal woman is the woman who has the means to get cosmetic surgery and considers doing so. That might be a big group, but it is not universal. Her whole essay gave me "keep my name of your mouth" vibes.

Finally, the idea that "every woman" needs to read her essay suggests that "every woman" is not already aware that we are plagued by the constant barrage of beauty marketing. We all know already. It reminded me of an ad campaign that Kaiser Permanente did a few years ago. Their research found that people already know that obesity is bad and that the (pre-Ozempic) solution to this problem is healthier food and more exercise. Most people found reminders about this to be condescending, and they ignored new campaigns that told them that they needed to eat better and move more. So Kaiser changed its campaign to show people doing all the different activities that qualify as exercise. A baffled-looking woman tries several different activities - dance class, bowling, swimming - before finally looking happy with a group of people walking. In other words, they assumed their audience knew both the problem and the solution, and worked to expand the definition of the solution.

I feel like this essay is in the same camp as Kaiser was before they changed their campaign. Except for possibly some young women (and let's be honest - they know), "all" women know that they are being sold to. I of course hesitate to invoke a universal "all women" after my earlier statements, but do you know any women who would be surprised to learn that corporations are trying to make them feel bad so they'll spend money?

Knowing this doesn't stop most of us from spending some money to look better or feel better. For example, I think pedicures should be mandatory, emphasis on "man". Like every man needs toe care and they aren't getting it. Can you imagine getting through the winter without lip balm and moisturizer? How would your hair feel on your head without the right shampoo and conditioner? Barring a return to using animal fats we rendered ourselves, I think we will need to buy those. The ones I buy or you buy are dictated by your preferences and your budget. Until the writer explains how we will stop wanting to feel and look better, I don't think efforts to end the beauty-industrial complex will succeed.

I'm not defending advertising or the impossible beauty standards that capitalism requires to feed its beauty-industrial complex. I'm just suggesting that it is not one of the biggest existential threats to modern women. Women have agency. They make choices. They have different reasons for those choices, some of which might be fucked up reasons, like their crippling insecurity. Suggesting they don't know that already is an insult. Emma Stone and Miley Cyrus, two celebrities whose cosmetic surgery comes in for the most criticism in that article, know what they are doing. They know what they look like. They made their (stupid) choices. I'm not sure why the rest of us (me) have to waste precious gray matter worrying about. At me when you've got a solution for Capitalism, please.