Ladies! You may think you’ve got the men of the world fooled, but the guys over on MGTOWforums.com can see right through you! As dontmarry puts it:
Everything that a woman does is deceitful. From makeup, push-up bras and high heels, to fibbing about her dick count or proclamations of ‘I don’t mind marrying a poor man’ (oh yes you do).
That’s right, ladies! We know those eyelashes aren’t real! We know your cheeks aren’t really that rosy! And your lips aren’t really that red! And your boobies aren’t really … um, what was I saying? I got distracted thinking about boobies. Anyway, you’re all a bunch of liars! I bet some of you even wear Spanx, which are a tool of Satan.
Also, that thing he said about the dick count. Stop the lies! We demand dick count accuracy!
What I especially like is certain men’s belief that they are entitled to precise and accurate information regarding the weight, height, age, sexual history and parental status of any random woman that they happen to lay their eyes on.
On the $300 a month, back when I bothered to use make up, that was the cost for the stuff I got because I bought the stuff at a department store. Depending on what kind you go for (I picked Benefit because that is what the guy told me to pick), you can easily spend more than $300 to start and then another $300 depending on how fast the stuff runs out.
I am Sephora’s website and the most expensive of their liquid foundations is $62. The powder one is anywhere from $8 to 59. They also have cream and something called loose foundation that I am not going to bother on looking at. That is just one type of make up.
These are definitely good products however they are very expensive. And in some careers, it is the kiss of death to be seen using anything less then the very best. So if she was in a situation where she had to maintain a certain image, she is stuck.
What I especially like is certain men’s belief that they are entitled to precise and accurate information regarding the weight, height, age, sexual history and parental status of any random woman that they happen to lay their eyes on.
Amused, please see my modest proposal for this issue earlier in the thread. (Places tongue firmly in cheek.)
who cares? Once again, we have liberals trying to force the conversation into Bush driving a car into a ditch, as per previous example I posted:
chuckee, do we need to add chronology to the list of things you dont understand. if you bring up your writing, youre the one who started it. first equals first. this is not hard, why are you struggling with it. when we respond by pointing out that your writing isnt nearly as complex as youve convinced yourself it is, that youre in fact a lazy incoherent writer who dresses up his back-of-the-envelope sociology with words he doesnt know how to use, were, y’know responding to you. responses come second. first, then second. keep at it because once you master that, we can move on three and maybe even four events and a row!
and seriously, have you moved on to just whining about how the mean nasty liberals wont coddle your pwecious widdle autodidact brain everytime we point out your huffing your own emissions. because thats pathetic, even for you.
I thought that seemed astronomical too, actually, and asked immediately how that was possible. She said it was low based on her talking to a relatively upscale uh…. what is it. MAkeup representative who was a friend of hers. I already know poor people can’t afford this shit, natch. But she’s getting hassled for ‘too little’, and well, yeah. MRAL seems to think that women just walk out of bed looking like Her Royal Highnesses with amazing looks they use to make men suffer or whatever the fuck his exact claims are on what hot women do. It’s not true. Time and money goes into that shit. And I gotta be honest, even without makeup she looks fantastic. Still gets shit for wearing ‘too little’. I chalk at least part of this up to the class of the place.
I’d be outright boondoggled if she were in a tech company, I’ll be honest, but she isn’t. Also, it’s Texas, I assume that’s a factor.
Don’t get me wrong, I can see dropping $300 at once easily. Several times a year even. But unless you,re covering Joker-style facial scars that $62 bottle of foundation should last more than a month. If you got a job that can require not just makeup but $3600 per year of the finest skin paint just to be presentable at the office you should go back and renegotiate that shit into your salary. I’m not sure I’d find that a reasonable expectation for any woman whose job doesn’t involve sudden, frequent, unpredicatable television appearances on behalf if the company. And in that case they’d best be explicitly paying for it.
Reasonable or not, is the expectation more onerous than unemployment?
You know, I wonder how long this pressure to wear makeup to work would last if HRs had to come up with explicit policies and reimbursement procedures.
You know, I wonder how long this pressure to wear makeup to work would last if HRs had to come up with explicit policies and reimbursement procedures.
…or if it was men being pressured into it.
Katz’ obviously not because she’s still there. But I’m not sure I like that argument, unless the rather onerous cosmetic requirement is clearly disclosed before you get the job. But if she and the coworkers are repeatedly getting shit for not having the right look, it sounds like not so much. How much should my boss’ opinion of what a lady should look like cost me before it’s his problem again? If multiple women are spending hundreds of dollars a month and practicing every day day and still not getting it right,then put together a style guide, offer some classes and wait for the lawyers to call.
I don’t like it either, but in this market it’s hard to argue with “Better to spend the time and money and have a reasonably good job overall”, in my book. But I’ve been unemployed long spells.
None of that makes it *fair* to demand though. Again, that is time, money, and effort. And it’s pressure, which MRAL *insists* doesn’t exist. Probably because he’s not a woman outdoors.
…Ah, and I did the thing I’m usually pretty good about, disproving an idiotic assertion with a personal anecdote that shouldn’t even be up for debate because of how stupid it is.
kysokisaen, I’m not trying to argue in favor of the requirement, just to observe the crappiness. From the employee’s perspective, there’s just not much you can do; rocking the boat is unwise when there are 150 other people who wanted your job.
Refer to my “pearls to swine” argument that I brought up in another thread. The typical pattern of liberals is to take anything their opponent says out of context, any argument, phrase, whatever, to misrepresent, and I’m not interested in giving any liberal that pleasure, however trite it might be. And whenever liberals are denied that pleasure, then they will just resort to name-calling, or tackling some other irrelevant point, like grammar. Just follow the above thread, to see what I mean. The evidence is there. Stock-standard, textbook. Liberals are simply not interested in rigor, truth, or the correct application of data. Why should they be? History has shown that everything they do relies on lies and manipulations. Only a fool debates with a child and then expects to be taken seriously.
Projecting again Chuckie.
Chuckie, so you’re refusing to present us with any data on the grounds that we’ll just misinterpret it anyway?
Why are you even bothering to talk to us?
The pleasure of seeing liberals squirm, employing all their aforementioned tactics and proving me right.
Emphasis should be on misrepresent rather than misinterpret. Though given that liberals are so stupid, misinterpret applies as well.
and the data we provide… that’s just a liberal trick.
Never mind that the actual attacks are on not on his grammar, but his rhetoric.
chuckee, ill say this about you- i admire your total comment to only speaking in cliches.
There is also his deft use of smileys.
That’s not squirming, it’s laughter. I’m still chuckling over the notion of Ann Coulter complaining that liberals argue in bad faith, which is a bit like Jeffrey Dahmer warning of the evils of cannibalism. Hilarity was never less intentional.
Interesting strategy you’ve got there, Chuck. Next time I play chess I think I’ll just shout “I’m on to your little game!” at my opponent, then refuse to make any moves. I think you’ll agree; my victory is assured.
CB: Yeah, it’s not as if chuckeedee is likely to rise to the skillful nuance of an Ann Coulter, but he is getting closer to being able to use an XD like the master.
XD
I have a hard time believing that Chuckie is really succeeding at making himself happy this way. YMMV, I suppose, but when you’re with an entire group of people who think you’re an idiot, flipping things around and saying, “No! I’m right and you’re the stupid ones!” is never very convincing (although marginally more so if you are right).
It’s like when you didn’t get invited to that party in middle school and you tried to convince yourself that you were having way more fun at home by yourself. You can say it, but you can’t make yourself feel it.