“She is darker, stronger, looser, tougher, sexier. The maturing of a woman who has continued to grow is a beautiful thing to behold. How can an “ideal” be about women if it is defined as how much of a female sexual characteristic does not exist on the woman’s body, and how much of a female life does not show on her face?”
“What becomes of a man who acquires a beautiful woman, with her “beauty” his sole target? He sabotages himself. He has gained no friend, no ally, no mutual trust: She knows quite well why she has been chosen. He has succeeded in buying something: the esteem of other men who find such an acquisition impressive.”
“Women who love themselves are threatening; but men who love real women, more so.”
-Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty are used against Women (1991)
Introduction: Buddhist philosophy on physical appearance and sexual desire
In general, from a Buddhist perspective any major focus on the mere physical “external appearances” of a woman (or man) go against the whole Buddhist concept of being aware of the fundamental “disgusting” nature of the conditioned, physical body, impermanence, aging and death, as well as focusing on developing “inner beauty” qualities which are longer-lasting and more important than the outer ones.
Of course, it is not “bad” either for a woman to be sexually attractive and beautiful, and if they have both inner and outer beauty, how fortunate for them! It is often beneficial to want to “look attractive” and take care of oneself physically. Health and general hygiene are important(unless one is a real yogi like Milarepa!). The main point is an excessive focus on (and being rewarded and promoted) for one’s physical appearance only, that would not be in accordance with the Buddha’s teachings.
However, it can (and does) also operate the other way too. As a Buddhist scholar-translator-practitioner, I have myself been criticised by women and men for what they see as my “physical beauty” or for trying to promote my “beauty” etc.. So, I know (from personal experience) how even when a woman is physically attractive, and fits a certain ideal, both men and women dislike her for that too! The point being female beauty is both celebrated and attacked/undermined in a sexist world, proving that the emphasis on “how women look physically” is more about men controlling and policing women’s bodies, dress and conduct, than anything else.
When I was studying for a Philosophy Master’s degree at King’s College, University London, I remember reading Naomi Wolf’s brilliant book The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women (originally published in 1990). The basic premise of The Beauty Myth is that as the social power and prominence of women have increased, the pressure they feel to adhere to unrealistic social standards of physical beauty has also increased because of mass media portrayals of the ideal female beauty. This pressure leads to unhealthy behaviors by women and a preoccupation with appearance in both sexes, and it compromises the ability of women to be effective in and accepted by society.
In her book, Klein demonstrates and analyses how rather than empower women unrealistic, heavily edited images of women as fashion and porn models, put pressure on all women to look and appear in certain ways and be of a certain age. This has led to huge amounts of women, particularly in the USA and North America undergoing the risky procedure of plastic surgery and Botox, even in their twenties and thirties!
Yet, not much has been said or written about how this ideology and pressure is prevalent even in the Buddhist communities. In this brief article, I consider a few examples of how women’s bodies and appearance are idealised and stereotyped in Buddhist art and human women. Like my article on biological bodies and tantric practice in Vajrayana, this is the first time anyone has written on the topic within contemporary Buddhist communities (and teachers).
I hope that it provokes some thought, discussion and change for the better. However, as long as those communities are dominated by men who have such “chauvinist dinosaur” types attitudes towards women and their roles and value, it will be difficult to effect real change, unless people within those communities pressurise them to stop. I see that as part of my own role and writing here.
The question of Miss Tibet and male sexist, ageist notions of female “beauty”?
I first wrote about Klein’s book in relation to Tibetan Buddhism and Buddhism in general, in a 2012 article online regarding the development and introduction of the Miss Tibet beauty contest in the Tibetan Buddhist community and culture, and mixed reactions in that community (men and women) regarding it. The article was entitled Miss Himalaya 2012: an ugly beauty in Tibetan exile. The article also shared the opinions of some in the Tibetan exile community who felt it was not consistent with Buddhist ideas about women, sexual desire, objectification of women and valuing outer appearances more than inner qualities.
The opinion report caused a bit of a stir (with both supporters and detractors) and the Tibetan Women’s Association published a copy of it in their journal, Dolma (2013). Nonetheless, regardless of debates about it, generally speaking the vast majority of progressive women (and men), see such ageist and sexist beauty contests (see the entrance requirements!) as a “dinosaur” from the sexist, patriarchal past, that have no real place in contemporary society and views of “beauty” in terms of women.
I again then came across the objectification and “Barbie Doll” view of Buddhist women when commissioning a thangka artwork (by a Tibetan artist in Dharamsala), after I published it some complained the faces of the women were “ugly” even though it had been drawn and painted in a traditional Tibetan style of Men-ri.
Images in contemporary Buddhist books
I also highlighted this “Barbie-fication” of women in Buddhist studies, when seeing the drawn images used in Dr. Miranda Shaw’s book “Passionate Enlightenment” (1999), as I wrote about in a 2021 article called UNSUNG HEROINES, MOTHERS OF MAHĀMUDRĀ AND SOURCE OF SARAHA’S SONGS : Re-telling the (her)stories of the symbolic ‘arrow-maker’ Dakhenma, and the ‘radish-curry’ cook gurus of siddha, Saraha, I enjoyed reading Shaw’s innovative work, but the drawing of the “yogini teachers’ just seemed so bland and catering to a rather certain male fantasy of women as doe-eyed, big breasts, small waists, long hair etc.. I wrote (2021):
“Even Shaw’s sole depiction of the arrow-maker (1994: 133) could be accused of artistic ‘romanticism’ [or orientalism] in that the the reality is there is no textual source that says the arrow-smith daughter was considered physically beautiful by her community , nor that was a reason why Saraha became inspired by her and approached her. The sources state that he was drawn to her skills and precision in arrow-making. Normally, if she were considered beautiful physically, by those around her or the siddha yogi, it is mentioned in the original Indic/Tibetan sources.”
Yet, as we all know even in the Buddhist canon, women do not fit this stereotype at all, and nor should they have to.
Unnamed “young and pretty” women at major Buddhist events, picked for their age and looks rather than any obvious, substantive qualifications
A few months ago, I also wrote about the spectre of the “Barbie doll” woman in Buddhism, when I found out about the use of three unnamed women who compered the Karma Kagyu Monlam event concert in NY 2018, simply named as “young and pretty” in the Kagyu Office official report write-up. No-one batted an eyelid that this representation of women at Buddhist events as being sexist, and patronising, especially when the three prior MCs had all been educated, Buddhist scholar Khenpo monks.
As some people did not seem to get the point, I wrote a follow-up jokingly asking readers how people would feel if the Marme Monlam concert had three young and handsome, “hunk” male MCs instead, with zero connection to Buddhist studies or practice? Many people (especially hetero men) would have thought it odd, right?
In any case, this sexual objectification and representation of women as being valuable if they look a certain way in Buddhist communities, clearly is a worldly thing and has no basis in Buddhist philosophy or practice. In fact, I recently found out from a Kalacakra scholar, that the ideal consort woman according to Kalacakra Tantra would be around 48 years old! One hardly ever hears about that, wonder why?
Lack of women’s voices and scholarship at Buddhist events and on Buddhist online resources
Combined with the lack of women speakers and voices at major Buddhist events and conferences, as evidenced by the Global Buddhist Summit in Delhi in 2023, which I wrote about here in The Diplomat, is a sign that progress on genuine equality, respect, and consideration of women’s voices, lives and experiences as practitioners, teachers, translators and so on, still has a long way to go in Buddhist communities.
There was even a recent incident, when I called out and reported the sexist tone of a new Treasury of Lives biography of the “allegedly cruel” Tibetan Queen, Margyel Donkar by American white male scholar-translator, Joe McLellan. Even though I wrote to McLellan to point this going along with a “sexist narrative” and language and requested he change it, he never replied. Instead, I was accidentally sent an email by Alexander Gardner (director of Treasury of Lives) meant for McLellan and others only, telling him that “she [Adele] has nothing to say!” So there you go. Two men privately discussing a female scholar (who also has two published biographies on TOL) that her voice/opinion is unworthy of hearing, but without telling her that and explaining why. If that is the current state of communication between “educated” men and women in Buddhist Studies, it is poor and immature indeed.
Too much focus on a woman’s appearance and not her abilities and voice
Images of beauty are only accepted by the sexist patriarchal cultures when they own, control them, and their narratives. So, when physically attractive women, use their “beauty” to empower/promote themselves as they wish on their terms, this is then questioned (and used against them) by men and women as vanity, or fakeness and so on.
This has happened to me on numerous occasions as a Buddhist scholar-writer-translator in the Buddhist Studies field, but also as a survivor of a Buddhist teacher’s misconduct and community bullying and defamation as a consequence. Some have questioned my own personal “self-portrait” photographs as a sign I am fake and unreliable, while other images taken without my permission in the middle of Buddhist teachings and empowerments have been used against me to bully and malign me.
Which proves that a woman’s image is often seen by men (and their female enablers) as their main currency and value and the first in line to be targeted if they want to denigrate a woman. I have even attended Buddhist events, where even when there are female speakers, instead of people focusing on what a female speaker is talking about they comment on her physical appearance, age and so on.
Recently, when I published my podcast video interview with Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo, an eighty year old nun and renowned Buddhist teacher-practitioners and founder of one of the most beautiful and best nunneries in Himachal Pradesh, a woman made a “bitchy” dig comment about how nice it was to see Jetsunma “au naturel” without make-up etc. indirectly suggesting that my visage was somehow unnatural because I wear eye make up. When I messaged the woman to ask if her intention was to “denigrate me”, she confessed it was. When I challenged her on the blatant sexism and objectification of women by focusing only on their appearance and not on what they are speaking about and doing, she apologised and agreed it was ethically wrong and undermining of women. After all, men never get the same comments or focus on their age and appearance as women do.
Passion vs Prudity and controlling perception and displays of women’s bodies by male patriarchal norms
The issue here is actually about controlling how women dress and behave, which fluctuates between wanting a very sexual, naked woman to a very pure, fully covered up one. As I wrote about previously, in THE “CENSORED” TARA: POWERFUL PASSION VS PRUDISH PURITY. Depictions of women in Buddhist art and literature and the sexual objectification, denigration and censorship of women’s biology and nakedness (2022),in relation to this gorgeous bare-breasted Tara statue from Sri Lanka (see photo) , as well as this not so conventionally attractive statue of Tara both at the British Museum, contemporary ideals of female beauty, are not only lacking in imagination, originality and brilliance, but cater to a rather boring male heterosexual ideal of female sexuality and beauty. Women conditioned by such beauty stereotypes, as Klein writes, also sign-up to this ideal unquestionably.
As we even see in a worldly context, men are allowed to post photos and images of themselves bare-chested showing their nipples, yet women are banned from doing so, unless it is in the context of breast-feeding, and even then it may get censored! This itself is clear evidence of the double standards on women’s bodies and how they have been objectified and sexualised, despite breasts being one of the main sources of food for new-born babies and thus should be venerated for that alone, not just because they arouse men sexually.
So, basically the focus on women’s physical appearance and bodies in these contexts, perpetuate sexist, patriarchal ideologies about women as sexual or pure beings, continuing the Madonna-whore psychology thet Freud wrote about so well, where men (and women) are unable to see women outside of very restricted boxes of sexual, pure, mother or whore. So if woman is sexually attractive, sexual and very able and talented that is very confusing indeed for such a male gaze, and one which they tend to want to avoid at all costs!
In any case, it is a deep-grained attitude and way of looking at women ingrained in both men and women, and present day culture with its media obsession with celebrities, models and actresses increases such an attitude. Of course, women can use this to their advantage too, and there are many women who are physically very attractive but also highly talented and able scholars, translators, practitioners and so on, and that is great too. The point is women should be valued for their talents, abilities, inner qualities and experiences, regardless of how they “physically appear”.
Progressive women and men often think the era of the “dollybird” token woman is over, but these recent examples, clearly show it is not within the Buddhist arena, and that women (and men) still have a long way to go to openly listen to women’s voices and experiences, and reward their talents and abilities, with as equal care and respect as men, and without so much focus on their physical age and appearance.
This change will only come from within and from women’s and men’s voices protesting and calling out any such conduct, as and when they see it. I hope this article represents a move in that direction and into more discussion and recognition of this persistent issue. In the meantime, keep smiling and here’s to looking, dressing as you wish without puritanical, or sexist censure and comment!
