Hope
It'd be nice if they brought back Hope now to shake things up.
shareU want the MOLE face to return? NO thank u!!
shareMole face ? Kim Matula is beautiful.
shareI suppose if you like nasty moles she's beautiful. She has moles all over her face and neck it's hideous.
shareUntil the late 1990s moles were covered up with makeup on actors and actresses who have visible ones but now the makeup artists can hardly keep up with hiding even more hideous tattoos and body art that have now become fashionable but might be inappropriate to the character they are playing. It's a pity because actresses in particular used to be made up to look much more glamorous than today.
shareAin't that the truth. Tats are nasty, especially on women.
shareNo tats on this woman's body!
Wonder is the seed of knowledge.🐈
^Sexist.
shareIt is not a sexist. I am a woman, and I am stating a fact.
Wonder is the seed of knowledge.🐈
It is not a sexist.
Treating men and women differently is by definition sexist.
I am a woman
So?
I am stating a fact.
It is your (sexist) opinion that tattoos look worse on women than on men. Facts can be tangibly proven.
It is my opinion that I personally dislike tattoos on anyone. I find them ugly, and gender has nothing to do with it!
Wonder is the seed of knowledge.🐈
Treating men and women differently is by definition sexist.
So anyone who believes that beards and moustaches do not look good on women is sexist?
share
I am partial to clean-shaven men.
Wonder is the seed of knowledge.🐈
That's not a very good analogy. Facial hair is sex-specific due to biology. The same is not true of tattoos.
Facial hair doesn't look good on most men either, btw. Don Diamont is an exception, not the rule.
Don Diamont and Tom Selleck do look handsome, even with facial hair.
Wonder is the seed of knowledge.🐈
Facial hair is sex-specific due to biology.
You are not aware that there are many woman who could grow full beards and mustaches? That's interesting with the know it all attitude you display.
share
A few women here and there=/="many". Yes women often have small amounts of fine hairs on their chin and upper lip but that's not the same thing as a "full beard/mustache".
shareIt is not just a few women here and there and it is not just "fine" hairs. It may not grow as fast as men but that does not mean it does not grow full.
You do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're making this up.
shareThere is an entire industry devoted to unwanted facial hair removal for women. What size of rock must you live under? Even if we leave the women who could grow full beards out of it and only talk about the larger number of women who use all of these products and services. What do you think happens to hair if it is not removed by plucking, shaving, waxing, laser treatments, etc...? If you need a hint, it grows and becomes noticeable. This is something that is looked at with disgust by most people.
shareYes, laser removal of the fine hairs on the chin and upper lip. Again, that's not the same thing as the "full beard" you claimed that "many" women have.
shareBut what you do not understand is that it is not "fine" hairs for all woman. Many are coarse and dark, even ones that don't grow to full beards. You do not seem to want to accept this fact about women. But you should quit trying to act like you are a crusader for equality when you have no understanding of reality. You want to believe you can claim that biology forces femininity on women. You are completely wrong.
shareBut what you do not understand is that it is not "fine" hairs for all woman.
No, just 99% of them.
But you should quit trying to act like you are a crusader for equality when you have no understanding of reality. You want to believe you can claim that biology forces femininity on women.
But, biology is the only justification for treating men and women differently in the first place. That's why it's not sexist, for instance, for women to stay at home while men work-women are the ones who give birth. If there's no biological justification (as in the case with tattoos), then by definition it's sexism because it was humans who came up with the concept that men should do something and women shouldn't (or vice versa), not nature.
What is the point of fabricating a percentage? If you actually believe that you have accurate statistics that certainly does not say much for your level of intelligence.
But, biology is the only justification for treating men and women differently in the first place. That's why it's not sexist, for instance, for women to stay at home while men work-women are the ones who give birth. If there's no biological justification (as in the case with tattoos), then by definition it's sexism because it was humans who came up with the concept that men should do something and women shouldn't (or vice versa), not nature.
Not all women are biologically capable of giving birth. Just like some women grow noticeable facial hair.
This whole thing started because you called someone a sexist because of their opinion about what makes them less feminine. By your own standards you are a sexist because you expect some women to alter their natural appearance, in a way that a man wouldn't have to.
share
What is the point of fabricating a percentage? If you actually believe that you have accurate statistics that certainly does not say much for your level of intelligence.
I'm not sure how you understand how hyperbole works
This whole thing started because you called someone a sexist because of their opinion about what makes them less feminine.
She is sexist, according to the dictionary. There is no biological reason why men should have tattoos and women shouldn't.
By your own standards you are a sexist because you expect some women to alter their natural appearance, in a way that a man wouldn't have to.
I never said men shouldn't remove their body hair. I was pointing out that it was a poor analogy because men naturally have facial hair, while neither sex naturally has tattoos.
Yes, I do understand hyperbole.
She is sexist, according to the dictionary. There is no biological reason why men should have tattoos and women shouldn't.
Every definition for sexism that I can find says that it is believing one gender is superior to the other. Usually men being superior to women. I don't see how someone saying they don't find tattoos attractive on women is saying that they believe a woman is inferior.
And I think it is absolutely analogous to facial hair. Most people have the opinion that facial hair is not attractive on women even though there are no biological absolutes. Some women can't help but grow it while there are some men who are not able to grow beards or mustaches. share
Yes, I do understand hyperbole.
Evidently not, since you were acting as if I was using the 99% literally.
Every definition for sexism that I can find says that it is believing one gender is superior to the other.
Sexism is treating men and women differently without biological justification. If you claim that it just means one sex is "superior" to the other, by that logic sexism doesn't actually exist. Someone doesn't want women to vote? That's not sexist because the person didn't actually say that men are superior to women.
I don't see how someone saying they don't find tattoos attractive on women is saying that they believe a woman is inferior.
It's giving men a freedom that is not extended to women, hence sexist.
Usually men being superior to women.
That in itself is sexist
And I think it is absolutely analogous to facial hair.
No it isn't. The facial hair thing can be justified by biology; tattoos can't.
Most people have the opinion that facial hair is not attractive on women even though there are no biological absolutes. Some women can't help but grow it while there are some men who are not able to grow beards or mustaches.
Nobody cares about a few outliers here and there. As a rule, men can grow bears and mustaches, while women can grow fine hairs on their chin and upper lip.
Evidently not, since you were acting as if I was using the 99% literally.
Don't blame me for your inability to convey your point effectively.
Sexism is treating men and women differently without biological justification.
You'll have to take this up with ALL of the dictionaries since they disagree with you.
If you claim that it just means one sex is "superior" to the other, by that logic sexism doesn't actually exist. Someone doesn't want women to vote? That's not sexist because the person didn't actually say that men are superior to women.
This makes no sense at all.
I don't see how someone saying they don't find tattoos attractive on women is saying that they believe a woman is inferior.
It's giving men a freedom that is not extended to women, hence sexist.
No. It is merely someone having an opinion, based on what they find attractive. It has nothing to do with anyone's freedom. And it's not something that can be controlled.
Usually men being superior to women.
That in itself is sexist
No sh!t! That was part of the definition I gave of sexism! Good Lord!
And I think it is absolutely analogous to facial hair.
No it isn't. The facial hair thing can be justified by biology; tattoos can't.
Most people have the opinion that facial hair is not attractive on women even though there are no biological absolutes. Some women can't help but grow it while there are some men who are not able to grow beards or mustaches.
Nobody cares about a few outliers here and there. As a rule, men can grow bears and mustaches, while women can grow fine hairs on their chin and upper lip.
It isn't up to you to decide who cares about what. Biology has decided that all men and women do not have the exact same experiences as would be expected for their gender. Your inaccurate guesses about how many are affected have nothing to do with anything because it could only be one woman with a full grown beard, and that is proof the biology is not absolute. share