Dear God, not this stupid bint again

The Telly's resident proboscis monkey "feminist comment writer" is back with yet another intellectually diarrhoetic explosion of nonsense- this time concerning the question of whether it's sexist to tell a woman that she's tired in the workplace:
Chances are if a woman has a totally bare face, she’ll be told by both male and female colleagues that she looks exhausted, hungover or ill. Tired and pale. It doesn’t matter if she’s actually healthier and happier than she’s ever been; people are so used to seeing made-up women at work that an au naturale face seems anything but natural. 
Foundation, mascara, blusher, lipstick - these are the things that apparently make us seem 'well groomed'. Shockingly, a senior female consultant told me recently that some of the positive feedback she’d received in her annual review was to do with make-up. She was praised for coming across as “smart” and “well-presented” – comments her bosses would never think to direct towards male employees. 
The problem is that employers now expect women to wear make-up in order to seem 'smart' and 'professional'.
I honestly couldn't read any farther than that. The problem with stupid feminists- Lord, forgive us our redundancies- is that, like all Social Justice Warriors, they project their own insecurities onto everyone else.

The reality is that women use makeup to make themselves look better. And if you look like a certain Ms. Radhika Sanghani does, you might want to consider using more makeup, not less:

In a more rational world, the editing room of the Daily Telegraph would collapse under the sheer weight of the accumulated irony. A woman who would actually look halfway decent, were it not for that icebreaker's prow that she has where most girls have a nose, is bitching out men for thinking that women might perhaps look better with a spot of makeup now and then?

First-world problems, indeed.

Here is the reality of the professional workplace: there are environments in which women are not only expected to look good, they are required to do so. If you've ever worked in, or around, sales and trading in a major investment bank, for instance, you will very quickly realise that the women on the trading floor deliberately try to look good. They wear makeup, they take care of their appearance, and the really fit ones wear tight form-fitting dresses and killer heels.

(I remember with particular pleasure a very fine example of one such from structured rates sales back at my previous employer. She was a hard 10- tall, brunette, terrific figure, amazing fashion sense, and prone to wearing 4-inch black-and-red heels. On the occasions where I was able to work on the trading floor, she really did brighten up those otherwise long and painful Friday evenings.)

The fact is that those women were, and are, dressed to impress because they deal with clients and powerful men- and women- every minute of every hour of every day. Their entire job is to sell things. And the cold, hard fact is that you sell more if you look good.

You don't have to like it. You simply have to accept it.

So clearly, the young public school-educated feminist is not exactly putting her education to good use. (A note to my American readers: "public school" in Her Majesty's Realm is the term used to refer to what you Americans would refer to as "private school". As I have stated many times here, you lot don't speak English, so I constantly have to translate for you. It's OK, I don't mind.)

But wait, it gets worse! Ms. Sanghani writes somewhere later on in the piece the following:
It’s about time we recognised that professionalism has nothing to do with how attractive you look - and everything to do with the way you behave. And there's no high heel or nail varnish on Earth that can help with that.
Uh, no, you dumbass, professionalism has a very great deal to do with how you look.

Consider the following situation.

The managing director of US Credit Trading has just asked two people- doesn't matter whether male or female- to meet with him to discuss a complex technical problem, with the goal of giving a raise and a promotion to the person whose solution he likes the best. Both people are uniquely qualified to opine on the subject. Both are exceptionally skilled, well-spoken, experienced, gifted problem-solvers, and perfectly comfortable speaking to senior management. Both come up to the same basic solution to the MD's problem.

The only difference between the two is that one walks into his office dressed to impress, and the other does not.

The first walks into the room sharply attired and ready to deliver a good presentation. If a man, he is shaved blue, outfitted in a tailored suit (I recommend these guys- I never pass up an opportunity to buy a suit from them), and you could use his shoes as mirrors. If a woman, and if she has the figure for it, she's got one of those form-fitting two-tone dresses that really do a lot for a girl's figure, and has heels on to match. Her hair is done up nicely and she is wearing subtle, but tasteful, makeup.

The second walks into the room looking like he, or she, more or less just rolled out of bed.

Guess who gets the rewards? Even though both were equally well qualified?

This was a lesson that took me years to figure out as a man. People, regardless of gender, react to what they see. Humans are by nature a visual species; we use what we see to form impressions about the people we deal with, and a poor impression can take weeks, months, or even years of damage control to undo.

The problem with Ms. Sanghani's bilious blithering is more profound than she realises, though. As clueless as she is about the importance of appearance in a professional, modern workplace, she doesn't seem to realise that the very reason she is getting snarky, passive-aggressive comments about her appearance is because other women are judging her to be inadequate.

In other words, men aren't being sexist. Women are giving her very clear signals that she isn't up to standard.

As Janet Bloomfield points out in her rhetorical evisceration of Ms. Sanghani's vapidity:
Bitching and moaning over grooming standards is like taking a job at Hooters, then complaining that you have to wear a bra. Lots of jobs dictate whether men can have facial hair, piercings, visible tattoos, and they dictate what clothing men are allowed to wear. Hint: men’s dress codes are usually way stricter than women’s. [Can confirm. I work in a place where men are required to wear "business casual" all the time. For us, that means a buttoned-down long-sleeve shirt and dress pants, at minimum. Women have far more flexibility in what they wear. As they should.]
Radhika has a little pout over a performance review that commented on women looking ‘smart’ and ‘well-presented’, insisting that such comments would never be directed at men. That’s because men in professional environments don’t generally get the opportunity to come across as frivolous, stupid or poorly put together. There are only so many things you can do with a suit and tie. [Gents: learn how to tie a Windsor knot. Trust me on this. You'll thank me after your next interview.] She then goes on to moan that she prefers a makeup free existence, but feels she has to put some on when she’s going in to the office so that she appears ‘smarter’. She’s British, so she’s using smart in the sense of fashionable, neat, well-dressed, and not in the intelligence sense. 
And if she doesn’t? Then she gets passive aggressive comments from other women that she looks ‘tired’. Radhika ends by writing “[i]t’s about time we recognised that professionalism has nothing to do with how attractive you look – and everything to do with the way you behave. And there’s no high heel or nail varnish on Earth that can help with that.’ 
Honey, that time is already here. Women make shitty comments about your appearance because they hate you. That’s likely based on how you behave. Your own advice? You should take it.
Remember that Ms. Sanghani is the same twerp that wrote such nonsense about TOP GEAR- the GREATEST TV SHOW OF ALL TIME- that I had to give her article on the subject a very pointed introduction to the business end of my boot. Given what she is like in her writing, and in her media appearances, I cannot imagine what she must be like in person.

Is it therefore the least bit surprising that her female colleagues, being, after all, female, are sniping at her in passive-aggressive ways that make it clear that they think she simply isn't up to standard?

As JB pointed out above, Ms. Sanghani would do well to read between the lines and realise that, when men ask her if she is tired, they are asking her whether she is tired because she looks tired, and if she doesn't want to look tired, she should use some goddamn MAKEUP to hide it. And if women ask her if she is tired, they are asking her why she looks like she just fell out of bed after a particularly hard night down at the pub.

I realise that trying to reason with a feminist is a bit like trying to listen to dubstep- it's pointless, irritating, and ends up giving you a headache unless you stop and just switch to something else. I do wonder, however, just how much longer it will be before Ms. Sanghani- who I think is actually a few years younger than me- will hit the dreaded Wall, and all of a sudden realise that being a feminist was actually a colossal mistake.

By that time, of course, it will be far too late to do anything about it.


  1. People and their goddamnable, endless, pointless bitching about what I can and can't tell people. They can, either with or without ceremony, kiss my ass.

    I laughed at the article because I just told a female coworker she looked tired. DAMNIT I am a REBEL, son! Who knew?

  2. Eduardo the Magnificent19 May 2016 at 17:08

    It's always the ugly ones that cling tight to feminism. Kate Upton just got engaged to a $100M baseball player. Think she gives a damn about "female oppression" right now? Jealousy and anger really are the driving forces of leftism.


Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts