tion to low self-esteem among womenrn(as among men) is to unlearn the valuesrnand knowledge our patriarehal societyrnhas instilled in us and to relearn our truernselves through the discovery of an innerrnchild. She is dead wrong. We havernalready had too much unlearning andrnrelearning, and our civilization is muchrnthe worse for it. We need real, hardcorernlearning, and we need it now.rnSimilar psychobabble is found inrnNaomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth.rnAccording to Wolf, the destruction ofrnthe “Feminine Mystique” (by BettyrnFriedan and other 60’s writers andrnactivists) has allowed women to makernexterior gains, but the “Beauty Myth”rnthat replaced it keeps women sufferingrnfrom interior pains. She provides anrnalarming disclosure of the painful practicesrnwomen undergo in the name ofrnbeauty and a thorough analysis of women’srn”raving, itching, parching productrnlust,” but she fails to see that women’srnconstant self-surveillance is the resultrnnot of some male conspiracy but of thernnarcissism and superficiality of the commercialrnculture that reached its apotheosisrnin the 1980’s. Such vanity is as prevalentrn—and despicable—in men as it isrnin women.rnIn blaming the “male hegemony”rnfor women’s self-esteem problems,rnthe gender feminists miss a couple ofrncritical facts. First, boys’ self-esteem asrnwell as girls’ plummets at adolescence;rnadolescence is a difficult time for bothrnsexes, and any measurable drop in girls’rnself-esteem between the ages of 11 andrn16 is a developmental and not necessarilyrna permanent condition. “It’s only arnphase,” mothers are fond of saying, andrnmost often they are right. Second, womenrnand giris are themselves responsiblernfor this drop in self-esteem, through thernpressure both older role models andrnpeers exert on teenage girls to conform torntheir standards. It is our mothers, sisters,rnaunts, girlfriends, and even femalernstrangers who teach us how to behave asrnwomen, who encourage us to dress up,rnplay with our hair and makeup, andrnpursue boys—often before we are evenrninterested in such activities ourselves.rnWomen’s culture, mainly in the formrnof magazines aimed at the female populationrnfrom 13 years to 60-plus, is a majorrnsource of this pressure. Women’srnmagazines exert a huge influence on girlsrnand women, whether educated or functionallyrnilliterate, professional or workingclass,rnin their articles (both serious andrnfrivolous) and in their air-brushed pictures.rnSteinem (in a new collection of essaysrnentitled Moving Beyond Words) andrnWolf both show how pernicious an effectrnsuch magazines can have on women’srnself-esteem, as readers inevitably comparernthemselves to the “perfect” womenrnthey see on newsstands everywhere.rnWhile they neglect to mention that thernstaffs of these magazines are dominatedrnby women, they do an admirable job ofrnexposing the role corporate culture,rnthrough advertising dollars, plays in makingrnthese images such a central part ofrnwomen’s culture. This economic (notrnpatriarchal) pressure forces the editorsrnof women’s magazines to present theirrnaudience with an inconsistent and confusingrnproduct. Advice on how to makerna female voice heard in the workplace isrnfollowed by tips on how to attract andrnplease a man; articles on pursuing a higherrneducation are followed by suggestionsrnon how to apply eye shadow for anrnevening out; or, in one of the most preposterousrnexamples I have seen, a magazinernwhich consistently argues that malesrnand females should equally dividernhousehold responsibilities complainedrnthat a new advertising campaign for thernold-fashioned manual lawn mower was arnploy to get women to take over what traditionallyrnwas a man’s job.rnSuch inconsistencies arise because thernequity feminism of the I960’s and 70’srnwas merely grafted onto the old domesticityrnand beauty themes of women’srnmagazines; advertisers still demand articlesrnfeaturing their products. The resultrnhas been a legitimate and dangerousrnmyth that Sommers neglects to explore:rnthe Superwoman Myth. Because Sommersrndoes not discuss the influence ofrnwomen’s magazines (except to say thatrnthey repeat the statistics and stories generatedrnby gender feminist scholars andrnactivists), she does not encounter thernone threat to contemporary women thatrngender feminists like Steinem and Wolfrnare not lying about. The antifeministrn(and antiwoman) stereotype of Superwomanrnas depicted in contemporaryrnwomen’s magazines is a “male-imitative,rndress-for-success woman carrying a briefcasern—as well as raising perfect children,rncooking gourmet meals, having multiplernorgasms, and entertaining beautifully”rn(in the words of Steinem); she “took onrnall at once the roles of professionalrnhousewife, professional careerist, andrnprofessional beauty” (according tornWolf).rnSommers is right that women (andrnespecially white, middle- and upper-classrnwomen) need to stop complaining aboutrnthe past and get on with creating theirrnfuture, and she is right that this will requirernmore learning and hard work; shernneglects to tell us, however, that equityrnfeminism, while it has opened up ourrnoptions, does not let us have it all. Afterrnall, even men have to make sacrifices.rnMy father certainly moved more slowlyrnup the career ladder than he could havernif he hadn’t made spending time withrnhis family a priority, and although myrnbrothers and I respect him all the morernfor his choice, women cannot expect tornbe exempt from such difficult decisions.rnIn The Beauty Myth, Naomi Wolf assertsrnthat the “pernicious fib” of “postfeminism”rnis “making young women, whornface many of the same old problems,rnonce again blame themselves—since it’srnall been fixed, right?” Wrong. Of coursernit hasn’t “all been fixed”; “it” never has,rnand “it” never will. Prefeminism or postfeminism,rnlife is hard for women, just asrnit is for men.rnEven Betty Friedan, mother of thernwomen’s movement of the I960’s andrn70’s, recognizes this reality. When I sawrnher speak at the University of Michiganrnseveral years ago, Friedan admitted thatrnher wave of feminism had in some waysrnmade life more difficult for women byrngiving them more choice. Choice, asrnTocqueville recognized in analyzing ourrnsociety 150 years ago, can result in uncertaintyrnand envy. Whereas in an aristocracyrneveryone knows his place, in arndemocracy each person is supposed torndefine his position for himself. Wolfrnranks self-esteem alongside “money,rnjobs, child care, safety” as “a vital resourcernfor women that is deliberatelyrnkept in inadequate supply” and thatrnis presumably an entitlement to berndemanded, like health care, from therngovernment. While Sommers’ bookrndemonstrates how susceptible the mediarnand politicians are to such demands (witnessrnthe California Task Force to PromoternSelf-Esteem praised by Steinemrnin Revolution from Within), womenrnwould do themselves a disservice by joiningrnthe loud, but far from melodious,rnchorus of the gender feminists. Instead,rnthey (with men) need to get beyondrnNew Age nonsense, stop blaming thernsystem, make their own choices, andrnlearn to live with them.rn30/CHRONICLESrnrnrn