A light-hearted ad about hair removal: cue feminist outrage

Today’s Irish Independent carries an angry column by the festively-named Orla Tinsley, complaining about an advertisement for hair removal.

I should state at the outset that I have nothing in particular against ordinary hair on women. I actually prefer women to have some of it in the natural places, and I find a bit of down on a woman’s upper lip rather charming. But some people don’t like it, and if a woman wants her skin to be completely smooth, that is up to her. Her body, her rules!

Ms Tinsely, however, thinks otherwise:

Veet, the US manufacturer of hair removal products, have unleashed a new level of misogyny in their latest advertisements.

The TV ads which were first shown two days ago on US television have garnered a slew of complaints on their Facebook page and across the internet. They seem to be suggesting that without the almighty Veet product to guide us, women, with our less than smooth legs and prickly armpits will in fact turn into men. Let that sink in for a second.

So the ad portrays women turning into men as something not desirable? But hang on – how is that misogyny? Oh well. Ms Tinsley goes on to describe how the ad shows a man waking up and finding in horror that the person sharing his bed is in fact another man. The ad’s slogan is “Don’t risk dudeness.”

Firstly, what is dudeness? Newsflash Dude, the word ‘dudeness’ itself is now pretty much a term used for both men and women by both men and women.

Is it? I don’t think I’ve ever heard it used to describe women.

Major fail there, Veet. But we’ll take it you mean some misogynistically-driven, narrow minded idea of gender construction. Now that that’s clear,

It isn’t.

let’s talk about the alarming hint of homophobia and transphobia going on.

Thanks to Ms Tinsley and her ilk, the word ‘phobia’ is well on its way to becoming so overused as to be meaningless.

After the hairy alarm is raised the suggestion becomes that it is two men in a bed together that is in fact a nightmare.

Who the hell edited this?

That anything other than a conservative perception of gender identity or sexual identity – including hair – would cause your partner to leave. We suddenly live in some 1950’s throwback era and also some sort of gender marker panic machine has been made that can be pressed by the hysterical advertisement devisers at hair removal HQ if you’re failing at womanhood.

I don’t know, but I suspect that in the 1950’s women actually shaved a good deal less than they do now. Razors were more expensive, there were no more modern hair removal products around, and women were a good deal less likely to be seen strolling around Mediterranean beaches wearing bikinis. Anyway, Ms Tinsley, you press a button, not a machine.

Because according to Veet the slightest sign of stubble demonstrates your lack of commitment there ladies. The usually irritatingly light handed woman shaming that hair removal advertisements court unfortunately feels mild in comparison to this full on moronic series of advertisements. They are insulting, rude and have nothing to do with women.

Wait – first the ad was misogynistic, then it warned women against becoming like men, now it has nothing to do with women. Make up your mind.

But now Ms Tinsley gets to what really bugs her about this ad. It’s the fact that, fume though she might, most women don’t think like her.

Some lessons for Veet : shockingly, both women and men have hair. And by the way some women have so little hair they choose not to shave. Others have thick hair, curly hair, flat hair .. I could go on.

Please don’t.

They keep it or they remove it and will remain to do so as much or as little as they like.

Would it be petty of me to write “sic” there?

Whether it’s on our legs, our arms or other parts of the body. Men also have hair, shockingly. Some choose to be hairy, some smooth, some ruggedly in between. Hair is a normal indicator of a healthy developing human being. One would wonder if whoever came up with these advertisements has ever met an actual woman.

One would wonder if Ms Tinsley has ever met anyone in charge of a business. A business caters to a demand that already exists. It does not create that demand.

As it happens, I have met a few actual women, and oddly enough, many of them choose to shave. One acquaintance, who was earning around €30,000 per year before tax at the time, spent over a grand having her bodily hair removed by laser treatment. This was entirely her decision, and not one that was perfidiously put into her head by some shadowy corporation.

Ms Tinsley goes on to huff and puff about some other ad, and ends her column in the confident expectation that shoppers will now ignore Veet’s products in disgust. Good luck with that one.

We should probably feel some pity for Ms Tinsley. The world will never conform to her expectations of it. Women will continue to strive towards ideals of beauty, to gain victories over their female rivals and to be pleasing to men, while she rages impotently on the sidelines. “O this is counter you false Danish dogs!” Still, she needn’t feel too sorry for herself. A national newspaper did, after all, print this hysterical, poorly-written little rant of hers. As oppressive and patriarchal as she imagines the dominant culture to be, she nonetheless has easy access to the public square. She, and others like her, won’t be going away any time soon.

Blacklisting Mozilla

The idea that a business executive could find his company’s internet browser blacklisted by online businesses, and ultimately be forced to resign from his job, simply because he once made a donation to the campaign against same-sex marriage in California, might be thought to be some luridly paranoid right-wing fantasy. Yet it has happened to the now former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich.

The other day I overheard the following snippet of conversation between two female office employees, A and B. A is from south Dublin, an irreverent computer geek-type in her early twenties. B is in her fifties, and from the northside.

A: Omigod, did you hear that loads of websites are now blocking Firefox, because the CEO, like, came out against gay rights? They said they didn’t want to encourage people to use Firefox because his position was so wrong.

B: (Without looking up from her screen) : Well, it is wrong.

That short exchange says a great deal. First, there is the assumption, picked up and casually parroted by A, that making donation to a campaign for preserving traditional marriage is equivalent to “coming out against gay rights.” A is not, so far as I know, a fierce ideologue, and I doubt if she willfully distorted the facts as she had received them. Whatever the source for her information about l’affaire Eich, it had given her that impression.

Then there is the attitude of B: basically indifferent to what happened, but of the opinion that the man in question sounded like a nasty piece of work and had got what had been coming to him. That, at least, was what her words and tone implied. In some matters, crime for example, B is solidly conservative; I have heard her speak in favour of killing child abusers in various cruel ways, for example. But where same sex marriage, or “gay rights”, as she imagines, is concerned, she is on the side of the mainstream culture.

These people are not Utopian academics or liberal D4 journalists; they are two very ordinary Irish people, working in an office in the private sector. How they talked of this subject shows how completely the pro-SSM lobby has come to dominate the language of the debate. Twenty years ago, I doubt if many homosexual activists would have argued that opposition to same-sex marriage made a person unemployable. Today, normal citizens barely raise an eyebrow at the prospect.

Fighting Words From The Bishops ... 77 Years Ago

Rorate Caeli link to this fascinating piece today, to mark the anniversary of the end of the Spanish Civil War. It's a statement of the Irish Bishops from 1937, in response to a letter from the Bishops of Spain. What a contrast to the sterile, politically-correct episcopal Newspeak of 2014.