From the article:

"Now in her late 30s, she looks well preserved."

I can't even begin to think this isn't a typo. Surely, it should have read "in her late 60s"? What happened to "30 is the new 20"? Or "20 is the new Lolita" or whatever silly shit the beauty industry is flogging these days? The whole mess is hilariously wrong. I guess, at 41, I am a most exemplary speciman of a pickle, or perhaps a prize-winning jar of canned tomatoes, since without any kind of surgical help, I am confident, healthy and attractive.

From the last paragraph: "Looks are the new feminism" is a point she's so fond of she makes it twice over the course of the book. "Where once demanding equal rights and pay was a way for us to ask for an equal share of the power, the new way we show we have power is to be styled -- from top to bottom, from shoe sole to eye tuck -- to prove that we have our act together. This is how we demonstrate to the world we have it all, both the yin and the yang, the masculine and the feminine."

I'm surprised this wasn't explored more closely in the article. I know plastic surgery is everywhere; I know there are websites and TV shows dedicated to discussing who's doing it and how to get it done; I know many people are obsessed with their looks and terrified of looking old. I think most people know this, yet that was the focus of the bulk of the article. But I don't see the case for looks being the new feminism, unless the new feminism is the old chauvanism. I'm not saying feminists can't have plastic surgery, but calling plastic surgery a feminist act (which is basically what she's doing) is pretty ridiculous.

Oh, and I was also shocked by the statement about being well-preserved in the late-30s. I'm 37. I know I look young for my age but I certainly can't imagine anyone thinking I'm "well-preserved," nor would I describe any of my 30 or 40-something friends that way. And not because they're poorly preserved, but because "preserved" doesn't even enter the equation. Maybe the author was referring to a 30-year-old pickle?

that you can't subvert what you don't belong to.

Kucynski is a giant, self-obsessed ass. She should read Journey to the Ants, The Beak of the Finch, anything by Ford or Didion or Roth. A million bucks says, she hasn't, which is why she doesn't know what the fuck she talks about when she talks about confidence, inner beauty, outer beauty, blah fucking blah.

And I ressent the misuse of pronous and nouns. she isn't talking about people and men obsessed with plastic surgery. She is talking about women. Very very very fucked up women.

"...the new way we show we have power is to be styled -- from top to bottom, from shoe sole to eye tuck -- to prove that we have our act together."

Oh. I sort of thought they were doing that in Mandarin China. But hey. Come to think of it. These FEET, jeez... I mean, what kind of power-feminist doesn't have expensive little designer lotus feet? Sure it's mutilation, and yeah, there seems to be some confusion in the use of the word "power", but that's the yang in the yin, right? Or, whatever? Small feet, big power! No wrinkles here! Perky boobs! Hand-carved labia, even! Slice, chop! Very powerful woman! Great ass! BREAK those nasty old toe-bones and wrap 'em up tight, YEAH --

It's so heady, this new freedom, this feeling of inner strength and having-it-together-ness. The NEW FEMINISM.

Why does Salon publish this airheaded blather? Is this really even worth a controversy? How stupid do we have to get in order to keep up?

I do know one very basic fact is, many women have plastic surgery because they hope some things in their lives will be easier when they are beautiful. This kind of thinking is a seductive trap. I should know.

I'm writing this anonymously because I could never say it publicly otherwise: I was born cute, got better looking as I got older, till I reached "beautiful" status, and didn't realize till much later in life how much my looks had influenced my journey. Yes, many things were easier for me, and still are--men will do many things for me if I smile at them and ask nicely; I can wear raggedy clothes and look chic instead of frumpy; I get good tables in restaurants. Oh, and you wouldn't believe what good service my cars get if I take them in to the dealer myself.

But that's about all. On the other hand, I had to work ten times harder than anyone else to be taken seriously in graduate school ("Legally Blonde", anyone?) in the workplace, or in any other context where smarts are more important than looks. It's also very, very hard for nice men and women to approach me, because they automatically think I'll look down on them. I have to work ten times harder socially just to get the surprised "she's not stuck-up after all" which I assume ordinary people get as a matter of course. I"m not whining about these problems or asking for sympathy; I'm just mentioning them as truth.

And now that I'm older, I have to contend with people assuming I got this way by having surgeries--which, I find, makes semi-strangers believe I must be ultra privileged or self-absorbed until they get to know me better. (My breasts have been called "too perfect to be natural").

There is prejudice out there against the Barbie doll woman, even if she was born Barbie instead of Botoxed into Barbie. Either way, it doesn't solve any of the major problems in life. My ex husband still cheated on me (with extremely unattractive women)--and when people found out he'd done so, what was their first comment, each and every time? -- "But you're so beautiful! How could he cheat on you?"-- What does beauty have to do with it?

Take it from me, it's not that great, ladies. Think twice before going under the knife about what problems, exactly, you're hoping to solve. It won't solve any of them.