Comment on Damn
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 months ago
In a world that absolutely judges you based on your looks, is something that makes you look good really a “bad” investment?
This kind of shit could possibly make the difference between being hired or not, as wild as that is to say.
Further, when the majority of people cannot afford the basics (recent numbers put it at 68% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck), is it really their fault they cannot save? What kind of society are we creating when we are effectively telling the lower classes that they deserve no kindness, no pampering, no self-fulfillment? “Fuck getting that coffee, you could buy a house if you didn’t!” type bullshit that is totally untrue.
I would challenge the statement that half meter long nails and three liters of Botox and fillers in one face are far beyond the ‘self fulfillment’ and is rather a (very, very bad) marketing attempt.
If you decide to use your last money to stroke own ego and look like a porn star, that’s on you.
Thanks for the “poor people shouldn’t be allowed any luxuries” speech and proving my point.
That’s exactly not what I said but you do you
I don’t think the point of their comment was “poor people shouldn’t have luxuries”. Stupid actions are stupid, regardless. But when a rich person buys a sports car it’s just regular stupid, and when somebody spends their entire savings on a sports car and starves later, that’s extra stupid, because priorities. Everybody is free to do whatever, but it’s important to admit when we do something stupid.
Enjoy not having a job with your natural botox-free filler-free bitten-nails face.
So it’s all about marketing your flesh bag to the highest bidder? Ah so ironic.
I mean, yeah? That’s all job interviews are.
Even not considering the visuals - you’re just marketing yourself as more valuable to the corpo than others vying for the same place, regardless of whether you’re a man or woman.
But for women there’s an extra barrier. Many men, especially on the older side literally do not believe a woman can actually be on-par with a man in your usual blue collar job, nevermind exceed one, they cannot be convinced as such no matter what.
These are the types of men to give you a lecture about how you’re not given a voice, but then literally never let you get a word in. This behaviour is so deeply ingrained and internalised it’s just not really changeable.
What you can do though is distract from whatever they think your value is by being “nice to look at”. Their overall impression will be positive then when it comes to deciding these things at least.
This same strategy has a less commonly needed equivalent of men having a good shot at giving female interviewers a good impression by being charming and sociable.
Lookism is alive and well, always has been, probably always will be.
No notes on this comment
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 8 months ago
You 100% are judged on your looks. As someone who’s assigned female though, and usually lets interviewers read them as such initially, I have something to add.
There’s a VERY specific type of look women have to have in order to be seen as professional. You have to be as flawless as possible, but you also have to be understated. Any ‘fun’ type of femininity is looked down on. The long lashes, long nails and red lips definitely fall in that category. ‘Professional’ for women means you have to spend a lot of time and money on skin, makeup, jewelry, nails, hair, clothing, but you can’t have fun with it.*
Personally I’m in stem academia, where it’s expected that you look like you don’t spend any time on your appearance at all. Otherwise it’ll be assumed you can’t keep up with the men. Still can’t have, for example, body hair though.
*Unless you happen to have fun with nude colours and understated jewelry and fashion. Nothing wrong with that!