If you’re been in reach of a WIFI connection this week, chances are you’ve come across the news that Bella Hadid has been awarded the title of world’s most beautiful woman… because of the assessment of a cosmetic surgeon.
As Page Six reports, Dr Julian De Silva ranked the ‘most attractive’ celebrities on earth using the Greek ‘Golden Ratio of Beauty Phi’. The cosmetic surgeon used the ratio to measure beauty of these women.
If you’re new to this concept – because it sounds ridiculous to use math to define the beauty of women – allow me to explain how it works.
Credit: NBCUniversal Television Distribution
In essence, the measurements of the person’s face are taken, and the results are divided. The Golden Ratio sits at approximately 1.6, so the goal is to see a result as close to this as possible.
The reason this experiment has made headlines this week is that Bella Hadid was given a mark of 94.35 per cent for her beauty. This has then led to the deduction that Hadid is the world’s most attractive woman.
“[Hadid] was the clear winner when all elements of the face were measured for physical perfection,” Dr De Silva told The Daily Mail.
Beyoncé came in second at 92.44 per cent, then Amber Heard was third at 91.85 per cent.
And yeah, ok. These women are all very classically good-looking.
But reducing attractiveness to a maths equation completely erases space for subjectivity. Which, well… is what aesthetic taste is all about. No?
Beyond that, the practice of ranking women out of 100 and pitting them against one-another physically is just damaging. Who walks away from an experience that tells them their level of beauty is a mathematical fact and feels good about themselves?
Even a mark of 94.35 points out flaws. The whole concept is a dangerous recipe for highlighting insecurities.
In saying that, however, this is more than a feminist problem. It’s a mathematical problem.
As The Independent reports, mathematicians have referred to the practice of using the ‘Golden Ratio’ to define beauty as “hocus pocus”.
“The idea that there’s this one rectangle [based on the golden ratio] that’s this perfect one… and is reflected in the human body, that’s one of the most silly things. Human beings are so different,” Eve Torrence, a professor at Randolph–Macon College in Virginia told the publication.
“It’s a very loosey-goosey, pseudo-science kind of thing that they are promoting. There’s not this number that’s got this perfection in the way people think it does. It feels dirty to mathematicians. It’s hocus-pocus.”