I wish people would focus less on ‘women are expected to wear makeup’ which often isn’t true anyway and therefore very easy to ignore and more on ‘women are expected to visibly and obviously perform femininity through appearance and even down to the way they move, and non compliance is punished’ which is much more universally true and a lot harder to dismiss
Women are largely expected to wear makeup at least on occasion, although I would go as far as to say that the average woman only wears makeup a handful of times a month. When you take specific economic factors in account, it’s even less universal, because women whose jobs are more physically demanding are less likely to wear makeup. Ex, a CNA in a facility that requires a lot of lifting and turning patients is less likely to feel that she has to wear makeup to work, while a doctor almost certainly has to wear some level of makeup to be taken seriously. A woman who works in a facility’s kitchen sweating all day is less likely to have makeup play a part of her job needs than a woman waiting tables for tips.
And some women may be able to go through their lives without feeling any real level of pressure to wear makeup, and that’s largely due to the fact that they conform to gendered expectations more fully than many other women are seen as doing. Like, a woman who is seen as conventionally attractive and wears fitted clothes, has long hair, a delicate bone structure, is pale skinned in their community, and is thin with noticeable breasts is likely able to go without makeup completely, sometimes even to special events.
While a woman whose very body is seen as performing womanhood inappropriately will be required to compensate for that in a multitude of ways.
Because of this, it’s easy for people who have no real interest to engage about the difficulties of women’s experience to say that makeup is wholly a personal choice, devoid of political force. Because they can easily point to many of the women in their own personal lives hardly ever wearing makeup, so it’s not a real issue.
And this is largely because it frames the issue as just that: women feeling they have to wear makeup. Instead of women being punished for not conforming to a very specific and rigid gendered expectation. And it’s one of the reasons heterosexual feminists who argue women should be freed from the expectation of makeup will still present huge amounts of distaste and hatred for gnc women and ‘mannish dykes’.
Like. If tomorrow, it was just as normal and expected for men to wear makeup as it is for women, women’s lot in the world would not be improved in the slightest. If your could go back and somehow prevent makeup from ever being a thing, women would still suffer in the same ways, the rituals women must perform would simply look slightly different.
TL;DR: By choosing to focus on an issue that while real is easily dismissed and impacted by a million other factors because it is a symptom of the much larger problem without discussing what the problem is and that this is simply a single facet of how it happens, the argument is easily dismissed and frankly not going to do much but loosen the shackles on a very limited number of women while most experience no loosening of their chains.
And for gods sake ‘this is easy to argue against because it’s not as universal as it’s often framed, and discussions of this often don’t really touch on why it’s an issue’ doesn’t warrant a ‘but it was true for me so oh well’
I’ve spoken up about this before, and it might seem nitpicky, but it’s the difference that lets people claim that being antisemitic isn’t even about Jews.
Oh wow. I had no clue. If y'all see me do this, call me out please.
“It’s the difference that lets people claim that being antisemitic isn’t even about Jews.”
Unpopular opinion: straight people using “partner” to refer to their SO actually helps normalize the term so that lgbt folx can use it without automatically outing themselves to strangers. It also helps other straight ppl get comfortable with the fact that strangers aren’t entitled to information about other people’s gender or sexuality.
Give op their hard-earned notes
Tbh I hear “partner” and assume gay, I didn’t know straights used it. Very fair point, OP
I hear ‘partner’ and think ‘gay’ too. A girl at work used it for months and I just went with it. When she would say ‘he’ I even thought maybe he was trans*. Anyways, someone using partner makes me more comfortable and I came out to her. She was just an intelligent straight girl that liked the term and was knowledgeable in human sexuality so definitely someone I should have felt comfortable coming out too. It’s a good sign of a straight person uses it IMO.
As a mental health clinician, this is actually my blanket term when discussing any romantic relationship. I agree it normalizes it, but I also think it’s a relatively safe term to use to describe most romantic relationships without making any assumptions about the person’s orientation or identity. I also use the word “partnered” when describing a monogamous relationship status.
The term “partner” also removes the implied hierarchy of boyfriend/girlfriend vs husband/wife. This is relevant both to non-monogamous people, and unmarried individuals for whom the importance of their relationship isn’t dictated by its legal status.
also you can make cowboy jokes
as a straight, it also helps me weed out homophobes. if they act suspect when i say “partner” i know they gots to go
i’m really over the idea that customers deserve unconditional respect from employees like nah bitch you deserve back the exact amount of respect you enter the store with. you throw a tantrum in public? you deserve to be escorted out in front of everyone and i hope it’s humiliating for you. you try to come in after close and don’t take “we’re closed” as an answer? you deserve to be told to leave and ignored. you insult the people providing services to you? you deserve to be refused service. if you don’t behave like a damn adult with impulse control and basic compassion, no one personally owes you a fucking thing my dude
President Donald Trump once again
unleashed what’s become his presidential hallmark: a bizarre, winding,
threatening press conference, this time following his White House
meeting with Democratic leaders Friday to try to break the impasse
causing the government shutdown.
In a long, meandering briefing
in the Rose Garden, Trump told reporters the partial shutdown now
heading into its third week could go on for months, even years, if
Democrats don’t give him the $5.6 billion he’s demanding to build a
U.S.-Mexico border wall. The Democrats have steadfastly refused. The
shutdown has affected some 800,000 federal workers — 420,000 of them forced to work without pay — since Dec. 22.
“This is national security we’re talking about,” Trump said. “We’re not talking about games.“
When asked if there was any “safety net” for workers going without pay as the shutdown continues, Trump responded: “The safety net is going to be having a strong border.”
Trump
also floated another way he could get his wall: declaring a state of
national emergency over border security to build it without
congressional approval.
just so you know all the people not getting paid are also at risk of not getting unemployment either because the shutdown has gone on so long. ppls food, disability, and Medicaid benefits are going to b restricted. he is literally willing to let Even More people starve and die for a stupid fucking wall he won’t even be able to build. i don’t want hear shit about “negotiating” and uwu seeing the other side. he is killing people.
not 2 be like .completely incoherent all the time but i dont understand how the concept of baby clothes doesnt make most people burst in2 tears like the arms on the shirts r like that cus theyre that small like their little arms have 2 fit in there like ….we have 2 make it special just for how theyre sized
Reblog to have something good happen at 1:42 tomorrow
I saw this before I left work last night and had a quiet hope, and today I checked my phone at about quarter to two, while I was still on my lunch break, and I’ve just got a job interview with the BBC next week
I’m not a big believer in anything much but I’m so happy holy shit. So like unrelated note but something real good happened to me at 1.42 today lol
hot take: hrt, gender therapy and trans surgeries should be free
if cis people don’t have to pay to have a body that doesn’t make them dysphoric, neither should trans people
So by that logic does that mean that I should get anti-depressants and all the other pills for my mental issues for free because the people who don’t suffer from them don’t have to pay to have them?
yes
And does that mean that corrective lenses should also be free, because people with good vision don’t need to pay to see clearly, and that devices to aid in mobility for people with limited mobility (from crutches to (practical) canes to wheelchairs to prosthetics) should also be free, because people who don’t have limited mobility don’t need to pay for them?
yes? why does everyone in the notes keep trying to come up with gotchas lmao everything to do with healthcare should be free
Then by that logic, healthy food and clean water should be free because without food and water we will die. Also, without water, hygiene will be minimal therefore increasing the chances of disease.
Yes. People should have access to a healthy happy life and the whole point of a society is to support eachother and work together. how brainwashed by capitalism are you to think food and water shouldn’t be free in an ideal world.
this post is such a wild ride every time. ‘so by this logic, people should have free access to the things they need to live and survive?????????’ like yes bitch, all of it !!!
