AOC’s Outrageous Haircut

Sigh.

File photo. Almost certainly not the haircut in question.

Scrolling through memeorandum to get a sense of what people are saying about the most important news of the day, I stumbled across the least important news of the day. It seems that a Member of Congress got a haircut.

The Washington TimesAlex Swoyer,* surely in line for a Pulitizer if not a Nobel, breaks the story wide open.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has allowed life in Washington to go to her head — literally.

The self-declared socialist, who regularly rails against the rich and complains about the cost of living inside the Beltway, spent nearly $300 on her hairdo at a pricey salon she frequents in downtown Washington, The Washington Times has learned.

The New York Democrat ventured into Last Tangle Salon on 19th Street Northwest last month and shelled out $80 for a haircut and $180 for lowlights, according to sources familiar with the salon.

A 20% tip would have added $52 to the bill.

Whoa!

Breaking out the calculator, I see that comes to a whopping $320. Who does she think she is, John Edwards?

While I’m old enough to remember when Edwards became an object of ridicule for his high-priced hairdo, that was quite a few years ago. And he was, you know, a man.

I’m even old enough to remember when Bill Clinton was ridiculed for getting a high-priced haircut way back in the 1990s. But the main story then was that he did it while parked on the tarmac of an airport and other planes had to wait. (The delays turned out to have been virtually non-existent, but I must confess to not remembering the after-the-fact corrections.)

Alas, Swoyer’s attempt to reprise a golden oldie has one slight problem. And one big one. First, it’s 2019, not 1993; prices have gone up a mite since then. Second, AOC is a woman.

Having been married to two of them and now having two teenage stepdaughters, I can report that $80 isn’t a particularly high price for a woman’s haircut—even if you’re not going to a fancy salon. And while $180 for lowlights—or, you know, lowlights—seems extravagant from a man’s perspective, adding color to one’s hair and spending enough for several men’s haircuts in the process is not that unusual even in middle-class circles for women. It’s a thing.

But it gets better.

“AOC is the Eva Peron of American politics. She preaches socialism while living the life of the privileged,” said Richard Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, referencing the former first lady of Argentina who was known for dressing in designer gowns and jewels while advocating a socialist agenda.

“There is nothing wrong with spending money to make yourself look better, especially as a personality who depends upon visual mediums for her power. But it is a bad look to spend hundreds of dollars to get your hair done to make a video decrying income inequality,” Mr. Manning said.

Now, one presumes that poor women don’t spend $312 with tip for their haircuts. But AOC makes $174,000 a year and goes on television regularly. Paying the going rate for a professional woman’s haircut is hardly scandalous. And, presumably, her problem with income inequality isn’t that people who make a decent living can afford decent haircuts but that there are many people who don’t make a decent living.

But here’s the kicker:

She could have saved roughly $100 for the same hairstyle at the government-subsidized Capitol Hill barbershop.

Her high-dollar hairdo stands in stark contrast to that of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a former senator from Alabama who is a regular customer at Senate Hair Care Services in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building.

At that place, open to members of Congress and the public, a men’s cut runs about $20, though men’s haircuts there and everywhere else are cheaper than women’s.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, rather than going to a woman’s salon, she should emulate the grooming practices of Jeff Sessions. I mean, why not suggest a Flowbee?

Moreover, as Defense One’s Katie Bo Williams points out, it’s rather amusing to decry AOC’s socialism while recommending that she bypass the private sector in favor of a government haircut.

____________
*The first commenter noted that Alex Swoyer is a woman, which a quick Google search confirmed. Indeed, she’s the Times’ legal affairs correspondent and an attorney. This actually makes the story much worse. I could understand a youngish male reporter genuinely thinking $300 was a scandalous price—although not it getting through editorial vetting. But Swoyer is herself a well-groomed professional woman who goes on television with some regularity. She knows damned well how much a haircut costs.

FILED UNDER: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Congress, Gender Issues, US Politics
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. SenyorDave says:

    James, I reluctantly used the link (we are talking about the Washington Times) and read the “article”. The piece is by Alex Swoyer, and she is a woman. It is also good to see that even at RWNJ Washington Times the piece is getting slammed in the comments section. Many of the comments echo your point that DC is an expensive area, women’s haircuts are much more expensive than men’s, and this is what passes for journalism.
    I get my haircuts at a shop run by two Vietnamese women. The cost $15 and I have short thinning hair, so it takes about 15 minutes start to finish. I hand them,a twenty and I’m out of there. My wife spends about $75 to have her hair done, she is in there for about an hour total.

    ReplyReply
    3
    1
  2. Cheryl Rofer says:

    James, it would be a good idea for you to listen, rather than opine, for a while on women’s issues.

    ReplyReply
    10
    34
  3. Teve says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: while this may be true in a general sense, in this particular piece James’s perspective seems perfectly reasonable.

    ReplyReply
    34
    1
  4. Mikey says:

    I guarantee if Ocasio-Cortez didn’t spend the $$$ for a quality salon, the RWNJ media would be slamming her for looking like she didn’t spend the $$$ for a quality salon.

    She can’t win, because she’s their Emmanuel Goldstein.

    ReplyReply
    29
    1
  5. Cheryl Rofer says:

    @Teve: Only to someone who also needs to listen rather than opine.

    ReplyReply
    8
    35
  6. SenyorDave says:

    @Mikey: She can’t win, because she’s their Emmanuel Goldstein.

    Well she is obviously the leader of the Democratic party. She must be since the conservative media spends so much time on her. I just came back from two weeks in China on a group tour with Rhodes Scholar. Politics occasionally came up. The group was mostly 60+, professional and generally very opposed to Trump (half the people were retired university professors or teachers in public schools). There were four people who were traveling together who were staunch Trump supporters. At one point one of them went on an AOC rant, and actually said she was the leader of the Democratic party, and he truly believed that. I pointed out to him that Pelosi kind of squashed her like a bug a few months back, and he said that it was totally orchestrated by AOC because she has Pelosi wrapped around her finger. I think some of these people are certifiably insane.

    ReplyReply
    30
    1
  7. Teve says:

    @SenyorDave: I love how it took 2 powerhouse journalists to report this breaking story. 😀

    ReplyReply
  8. Tony W says:

    “Look Squirrel” – the official Trump Republican Party slogan.

    When you are being killed in the polls. When your president, who has never even managed 50% approval, is being impeached. When the public is against you on issue after issue – you gotta do something to distract and obfuscate.

    As we see every time on the debate stage, there is a much higher bar for Democrats than for Republicans. How many “Fox And Friends” hosts spend that kind of money – or more – making everything blonde for TV?

    Hell, how much does it cost to maintain that pathetic poof on top of Trump’s balding head?

    Maybe reporters need to dig into that story!

    ReplyReply
    9
    1
  9. Teve says:

    @Tony W: I think I saw an article one time that estimated that the kind of weave Trump buys costs literally tens of thousands of dollars.

    ReplyReply
    12
  10. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Being a cheap mf’er I have always avoided the barber as long as possible (not until it finally gets long enough to bother me) and then pay the least amount I can for a buzz cut. Never understood why people would pay more.

    I had some friends who had their own salon. I thought, “what they hey, I gotta spend the money, why not give it to them?” My first inkling that I had screwed up was when I saw their shop. High dollar. I mean, really high dollar. I gritted my teeth and walked in for my appointment, feeling like a warthog at a beauty pageant. J cut my hair and gave me the friends only discount (more than I paid my barber but I knew it was nowhere near his usual) and I left, knowing I would never make that mistake again.

    The next day I headed for my usual watering hole (a very eclectic place with a very diverse clientele) I walk in and one of the regulars at the bar who works in… Different circles than I, turns, looks at me and says, “Whoa, where’d you get the hundred dollar haircut?”

    At which point I realized there really is a difference. That even if I can’t see it other people can, and that if one is dependent on image for one’s livelihood it is worth it to spend the money for a good haircut.

    ETA: J did not give me a buzzcut. When he asked how I wanted it, I just said, “Whatever you think.”

    ReplyReply
  11. drj says:

    @Teve:

    in this particular piece James’s perspective seems perfectly reasonable.

    I don’t know man.

    I am a (white) male and all that, but I don’t feel particularly comfortable with some other dude pontificating about how pricey haircuts are OK for a woman because she is a woman.

    Why does he get to decide what gets classified as “normal female behavior?” And by extension, why does he get to judge on what is and what is not acceptable for women?

    Of course, it works both ways. I also don’t like women telling me what it should mean to be a man. But: a) this basically never happens; b) the history regarding this kind of policing is rather different, don’t you think?

    ReplyReply
    1
    12
  12. DeD says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    James, it would be a good idea for you to listen, rather than opine, for a while on women’s issues.

    How do you know he’s not listening?

    ReplyReply
    12
    3
  13. grumpy realist says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: Either you’re a new Jenos troll or someone who got zero on the reading comprehension of the SAT. Re-read James’ article.

    ReplyReply
    12
    10
  14. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @drj:

    I also don’t like women telling me what it should mean to be a man. But: a) this basically never happens;

    You’re not married, are you? 😉 and for the record my wife never tells me how to behave. She knows it’s hopeless.

    @grumpy realist: Neither. Google Cheryl Rofer.

    ReplyReply
  15. drj says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    I know your’re primarily (only?) joking.

    But your joke only works if two things are conflated:

    1) someone telling me how they would like me to behave;
    2) someone telling me how they would like me to behave based on my sex.

    The first of these is OK. That’s how relationships work: give and take.

    The second is a different matter.

    For instance, I don’t want to be told that I can’t drink wine because real men prefer beer. I don’t want to be told that I should like football because soccer is for sissies. I don’t want to be told that I shouldn’t show emotion because only girls cry.

    Similarly, women shouldn’t get told that they have to take care of the kids because they are naturally more nurturing. They also shouldn’t get told that their expensive haircut is OK because that’s just something that all or most women want.

    This is not a hard distinction to grasp, I think.

    ReplyReply
    4
    5
  16. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @drj: Only joking.

    ETA: as to the rest of your comment, I am one who has never fit in anywhere, liked the same things as everyone else, or lived my life the way others thought I should. The number of times I have heard, “What you should do…” were innumerable in my younger years and were consistently greeted with a hearty “Fuck you.” They are all but non existent these days.

    I always loved the “Stop being so selfish for not behaving how I want you to.” The cognitive dissonance is deafening.

    When my wife and I started getting serious I explained to her that I “don’t do birthdays, Xmas, Valentines day etc. I don’t do flowers, chocolates or jewelry.” etc etc etc Thatif those things were important to her she should find somebody else. She likes to say she married a frog and that I’m still a frog. No disappointments here.

    ReplyReply
  17. MarkedMan says:

    I make it a policy to ignore almost everything in the “shocked lifestyle genre”, even (and maybe especially) when it is someone I won’t be voting for. Two examples: George HW was mocked for being out of touch because he wasn’t familiar with scanners in the grocery store, which by then were fairly ubiquitous. A wealthy and incredibly busy lifetime public servant doesn’t do his own shopping. Whoop de f’ing doo. And McCain was mocked because he was spotted wearing a $500 pair of penny loafers. That one, however, I was actually interested in because I immediately recognized them as coming from Allen Edmonds, the only company left that makes dress shoes in the US and that particular model is almost perfect for a political candidate who spends all day on their feet and can find themselves in a fancy hotel ballroom one minute and then an hour later be in a barnyard. I will spare you all the details other than to note that they can also be resoled for $40 or even rebuilt to virtually new for $100 and that is the norm for people who buy these shoes. But the especial irony is that the most famous campaign picture of his opponent, Obama, shows him with his feet on the desk and worn spots showing on the soles of his shoes. They are, of course, wingtips from Allen Edmonds. The blurb I read accompanying the photograph even had Obama mentioning they had been rebuilt twice already.

    ReplyReply
  18. Neil Hudelson says:

    A few more articles like this and AOC is going to barely win 75% of the vote in her district.

    ReplyReply
    30
  19. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Neil Hudelson: 1 thumbs up and a hearty chuckle.

    ReplyReply
  20. drj says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    The number of times I have heard, “What you should do…” were innumerable in my younger years and were consistently greeted with a hearty “Fuck you.”

    Good for you. And I mean that sincerely.

    But, as you probably know, for women it’s much harder (and not seldom dangerous) to exhibit such an attitude.

    ReplyReply
  21. Jen says:

    Good grief Republicans are obsessed with her.

    I live in New Hampshire, not exactly a major metropolitan area. I am also 50, and regularly meet with clients–and I started going gray in my early 30s. I’ve done the cut/color/highlight routine for almost two decades, with the occasional add-on of a keratin treatment. It’s not remotely unusual for my salon bills to top $300.

    Trump gives the green light for Turkey to slaughter the Kurds, and Republicans are obsessed with AOC’s haircut. What a strange time we live in.

    ReplyReply
    18
    1
  22. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @drj: Even tho I was in construction and quite literally never worked with a woman during my 35 years, I know that. Especially professionally. Don’t want to get that “difficult to work with” label. What I don’t know, is just how hard it is for them. I have sisters (and a wife) who are not shy about their experiences, but even then I can only imagine.

    ReplyReply
  23. Jay L Gischer says:

    The usual argument for why males, or white people, or straight people, or cis people should stop talking is that
    1) they are ignorant, not having the experience of certain things due to their identity, or
    2) they are taking up space, monopolizing attention that would be better focused on what women, or people of color or gay or trans people, etc, are saying about it.

    I’m not sure that either of these reasons apply here. While James hasn’t had that sort of haircut himself, he is very familiar with it because of his wife and daughters. He appears to know the terminology and have a solid sense of how long it takes and what it costs. The notion that “men don’t know anything about women’s hairstyling” seems pretty gender essentialist to me. Some of the most famous and successful women’s hairstylists are men. I think it’s a lot easier for a man to know about hairstyling that it is for him to know about gender discrimination in the workplace, or sexual harassment, for instance.

    And this is James’ blog. Nobody has to read it, it doesn’t take up precious air time or column inches in a newspaper. There are women who comment here, and they are valued and not silenced when they disagree. So I don’t see how that applies either.

    So, I would like to understand more about this pushback. I mean, when someone says, in a comment, that someone else should not offer their opinion, it usually means they disagree with that opinion. But that’s an assumption, or maybe an extrapolation, and I would be much happier with a straight-up statement of “I don’t agree and here’s why”.

    And yeah, I identify with James here. I’m male. I have a wife and two daughters who get their hair styled. I also think criticizing AOC for how much her haircut cost is a little bit silly, and appears to come from a distorted idea of what socialism is and what it means to AOC. To be fair, I would use the term “social democrat” to describe her politics, so that’s a bit confusing. We have Bernie to thank for that.

    So, what am I not seeing? What other basis might I be missing? That’s a serious, earnest question.

    ReplyReply
    18
    1
  24. Slugger says:

    What is it about this woman that gets some people so hot? I live far from Queens, and the first time I read about her was on a rightie website. Before taking office she complained that it is hard to afford housing in DC on a congressional salary. DC real estate is expensive; everybody knows that. Yet, she was being mocked for making a common place statement. There are lots of other examples of huffing and puffing about small trivial and even banal things with this hairstyle the latest. I liked the video of her dancing on a roof in Queens when she was in high school that someone thought showed something bad about her. What is up with this?

    ReplyReply
  25. Teve says:

    She provokes a flabulance of jealousy and envy.

    ReplyReply
  26. gVOR08 says:

    @grumpy realist: I see Ozark beat me here, but I became aware of Cheryl Rofer through her posts at Balloon Juice, generally on nuclear or arms control topics. Knowledgeable and insightful. Here’s the bio from a recent article at Foreign Policy,

    Cheryl Rofer writes scientific and political commentary. She was a chemist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory for 35 years.

    The article is brief history of US launch control, which centers on taking control from the military and putting it in the more responsible hands of the president. Used to seem like a good idea. Well worth reading.

    ReplyReply
  27. drj says:

    @Jay L Gischer:

    So, what am I not seeing? What other basis might I be missing? That’s a serious, earnest question.

    From James’ orginal piece:

    While I’m old enough to remember when Edwards became an object of ridicule for his high-priced hairdo, that was quite a few years ago. And he was, you know, a man.

    Alas, Swoyer’s attempt to reprise a golden oldie has one slight problem. And one big one. First, it’s 2019, not 1993; prices have gone up a mite since then. Second, AOC is a woman.

    Yes, ladies and gentlemen, rather than going to a woman’s salon, she should emulate the grooming practices of Jeff Sessions. I mean, why not suggest a Flowbee?

    You can’t really deny that there is some stereotyping going on, no? And that James has different expectations regarding women’s and men’s personal grooming habits? (And not just because women tend to have longer hair.)

    With that in mind, reread my previous comments.

    Do you need to be convinced by them? That’s entirely up to you. But if you ask an earnest question, I try to give an earnest answer.

    ReplyReply
    1
    6
  28. Kathy says:

    Woman gets a haircut. Film at 11.

    Seriously, who the hell cares?

    ReplyReply
  29. steve says:

    “I am a (white) male and all that, but I don’t feel particularly comfortable with some other dude pontificating about how pricey haircuts are OK for a woman because she is a woman.”

    Why isn’t OK for him to talk from personal experience? My wife gets her haircut, gets lowlights, a pedicure and a manicure. Costs a bit over $200. In Allentown. Figure everything costs about twice as much in a big city. When you have been married for 30 years that is stuff you just know. You dont need to be an expert on women’s issues. (I dont really understand the need to spend so much money on this stuff, but I dont make my living with my looks, thank God.)

    Steve

    ReplyReply
    10
  30. grumpy realist says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: On rereading your comment I realize it wasn’t as snippy as I originally thought it was. So I apologize.

    I still think that James’ commentary on this AOC haircut bruhaha is perfectly reasonable, however.

    ReplyReply
    10
  31. EddieInCA says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    I don’t think you read the article. Dr Joyner is 100% on the side of AOC and slams the article for it’s stupidity, and DEFENDS AOC.

    That’ was an unfair gratuitous shot at Dr. Joyner, IMO.

    ReplyReply
    10
    1
  32. Teve says:

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
    @AOC
    ·
    2m
    Won’t you look at that: Mike Pence used *taxpayer funds* – not personal ones – to spend several thousand haircuts’ worth of public money on a visit to Trump golf courses.

    I wonder if Republicans care about corruption as much as they care about a woman’s cut & color.
    Quote Tweet

    Citizens for Ethics
    @CREWcrew
    · Oct 7
    $600,000.

    That’s how much Mike Pence billed taxpayers for his detour to a Trump golf course.

    And that’s just for the limos. https://citizensforethics.org/mike-pence-doo

    ReplyReply
    11
  33. KM says:

    Haircuts and styling are expensive and depending on who you are and what you do, they matter a great deal. I’m blessed enough in my career that I can literally roll out of bed, pin my hair up in a clip, and wander into work sans makeup and wicked bedhead and nobody gives a damn…. that is, as long as I don’t have any outside appointments that day. That being said, I do the ritual once a month wherein my wallet bleeds for the sake of fashion and I offer myself to the gods of the salon – everything else is maintenance at home. I spend more much money on my hair then I do on gas or food and I’m considered fairly lazy and cheap when it comes to my hairstyle.

    Something missing here is her ethnicity and hair type. Depending on what hair you were born with, things get more expensive. For instance, I have extremely thin, baby fine hair (1a) so I won’t go through a ton of dye but my sister has much thicker and longer hair (2c) , resulting in using almost two boxes of dye to do a full color. Her bill is always much higher then mine even if we have the same thing done. If AOC has Type 3 or 4 hair, then we’re talking about specific products to straighten or maintain and it gets… complicated. It’s not as simple as one price fits all because you are just not using the same materials and effort to achieve the same result.

    POC women and hair have a complicated and land-mine-ridden relationship. If you haven’t, watch Chris Rock’s Good Hair for some fascinating history and the real-world effects it can have on economics and social relationships. Granted the movie is based on an African-American perspective but it gives a glimpse into a world that’s more then just “hair” and why the amount of money she spent is not nearly as bad as it could have been.

    ReplyReply
  34. Franklin says:

    What, no pictures? What kind of rag is this?

    ReplyReply
  35. sam says:

    @Teve:

    “She provokes a flabulance of jealousy and envy.”

    And deep in their god-bothering hearts, not a little bit of lust, I suspect.

    ReplyReply
  36. drj says:

    @steve:

    My wife gets her haircut, gets lowlights, a pedicure and a manicure. Costs a bit over $200. In Allentown.

    Tell me, why don’t YOU get a $100 haircut + pedicure and manicure?

    Because that stuff simply isn’t expected of men, while it is, in many cases, of women.

    Or do you think it is somehow “natural” rather than the result of social expectations that women want pedicures and fancy nails and whatnot, and men don’t?

    So one way to read James’ piece is to see him agree with the proposition that women should take better care of their looks than men; and that, therefore, it is reasonable for them to spend more on a haircut than men.

    As a reminder:

    Yes, ladies and gentlemen, rather than going to a woman’s salon, she should emulate the grooming practices of Jeff Sessions. I mean, why not suggest a Flowbee?

    Again, I am not a woman, but if I were that shit would GRATE.

    This is not about knowing how much a haircut costs.

    ETA: to go full SJW on you:

    I dont really understand the need to spend so much money on this stuff

    You never needed to understand, because nobody was ever going to give you shit for not having your hair done in a fancy way.

    This, my friend, is a case of “male privilege” in the wild.

    ReplyReply
    4
    7
  37. dmichael says:

    @Slugger: She was attending Boston University, not in high school. Go Terriers!

    ReplyReply
  38. Jen says:

    @drj: I understand what you are getting at here, but don’t see it in James’s post.

    In my read, James isn’t getting anywhere near the “women need to take care of their looks” issue, he’s commenting on the rank absurdity of Republican obsession with AOC.

    Societal expectations on what women should look like and how they dress are indeed ridiculous, as evidenced by this utterly idiotic story about a teen denied admission to her homecoming dance for wearing a dressy jumpsuit instead of the *required for girls* attire of a dress.

    I just don’t see that here.

    ReplyReply
    17
  39. drj says:

    @Jen:

    I don’t think it was done with intent, but the Jeff Sessions/Flowbee line nonetheless gave it away, I think.

    It’s worth noting that implicit bias is a real thing. (If I may.)

    ReplyReply
  40. dmichael says:

    Well, mark this on your calendars, folks as I am going to publicly agree with a James Joyner’s post about a powerful woman. While I try to stay away from generalizations about women (or men) and would have preferred a post that discusses the broader issue of how Republicans are obsessing about AOC, James’s post is critical of the stupid article by Ms. Swoyer. I also understand why Ms. Rofer jumped on this post given James’s track record on these issues. When I first saw the header of the post, I said to myself “Oh, no, not again.” Perhaps less provocative and clearer headers would be appropriate.

    ReplyReply
  41. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @dmichael:

    When I first saw the header of the post, I said to myself “Oh, no, not again.”

    I often have that reaction to James’ phrasing of headers, but I have learned to read first, then cringe.

    ReplyReply
  42. Blue Galangal says:

    @KM: Thank you for this nuance – it’s important and something that I overlook too (as a white woman with hair so straight it makes flatirons weep with envy).

    Another thing to point out – especially for the commenters saying this is what women “want” to do…

    HELL NO.

    Take a minute next time you walk into a meeting or into an office etc. and notice what is the same about all the men around the table and what is different about every single woman. We’re so used to it that we don’t notice it. But when you stop and take a look: every single woman who is out and about in the professional world has to do SOMETHING with her hair. That is the baseline minimum. If your hair is in any way outside the norm (for some women of color or women who have “difficult” hair like me) that baseline minimum is often at least 150% more effort than 99.7% of the men around the table have to spend thinking about their hair.

    How much would I love to be able to throw on a suit, slap on a tie, and take my un-made-up face and $10 haircut on my greying head to work every day? I have straight, fine hair. My ideal preferred haircut would be a Jethro Gibbs special. Unfortunately I cannot, because it would look downright crazy, and I have to go out of my way to find someone who can cut my hair into anything that is not a semblance of a haystack, and I follow her from salon to salon and even to different cities. Do I pay extra for that? Yes. Do I tip her generously? You bet I do.

    I’m a woman so I have to get my hair cut and styled because that is what “professional” is. (So far I have resisted coloring.) Granted, I’m at a university, so the makeup part is mostly optional, and I don’t have to wear skirts and heels unless I want to. But what I wouldn’t give to be able to put on a shirt and tie every day and just be frickin’ DONE with having to decide what to wear, find shoes/hose to match, find clothes – PANTS – with POCKETS, find a TAILOR for the d**n pants because I’m short, AND get my hair cut and styled at a significantly higher cost than any man in my department pays.

    This isn’t overtly discriminatory, but it’s part and parcel of the price working women pay to participate in the professional world.

    ReplyReply
    14
  43. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Jen:

    this utterly idiotic story about a teen denied admission to her homecoming dance for wearing a dressy jumpsuit

    The stupid, it hurts.

    ReplyReply
  44. Monala says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: I’m a woman and I agree with Teve here. This is a good piece. Credit where it is due. James did listen to women in this case – the women in his life.

    ReplyReply
    12
  45. Monala says:

    @drj: I didn’t get James as being prescriptive here. He didn’t say all women need to go to pricey salons, or that all women want to. He said that someone in the public eye is probably going to want quality professional grooming, and if that person is a woman, it will generally cost more than what it costs for a man.

    Come on, folks. James’s posts about Woodward and Warren were bad takes. This isn’t.

    ReplyReply
    17
  46. KM says:

    @Blue Galangal:
    Preach. One reason I put up with the crap where I work is the utterly relaxed dress code when in-house. Right now, I’m in my office in a ratty comfortable AF grey hoodie, old jeans, and the hair of someone on day 6 of a weeklong migraine. The only comments I got this morning was someone asking if I needed a second coffee (I did) and noting I have no meetings today. However in my closet / desk drawers are the materials to pull a fairy-godmother style transformation into C-level powerhouse if needed. I’ve timed myself need 10 minutes to pimp myself out to bare acceptable boardroom standards while someone stalls for me.

    I do *not* want to have to do this. It’s bull. If I’m feeling terrible (chronic migraines will do that to you), one of the last things I want to do is fuss with my hair so it falls just right to look like I’m a Serious Professional. I hate that I have to waste time in the morning trying to remember when I last wore something and if it’s been an Acceptable Period of Time for me to wear it again. So much wasted time that could be used to sleep in or get work done is dedicated to the Look if I’m to be out in public or god forbid, on Webex or camera. If I have to travel to meet a client, I have a whole separate suitcase of crap dedicated to make me Professional I have to pay extra to cart around. The struggle is real.

    I feel terrible for the women in the office who have even less choice then I do to not play games with their hair. They always have to be on-point or it’s going to reflect negatively on them in a way it won’t for me. We have several AA women with weaves or straightened hair who will refuse to go out if it’s raining heavily and can’t explain to the male co-workers it’s not worth wasting hundreds of dollars getting wet. Guys just don’t understand it’s a literal investment of time and money that can be ruined by humidity or the weather so official lunch plans need to reflect that. No, we can’t have drinks at the beachfront restaurant with the client – find another place. No, we’re not being difficult, you just don’t understand it’s more complex then you are aware and I don’t have the time or energy to educate you.

    TL;DR hair isn’t just hair and never has been. It’s a valuable skill and cultural phenomenon. Anyone who thinks otherwise is really missing out on the way the world works around them.

    ReplyReply
  47. Paul L. says:

    Dear Republicans,
    The same Democrats who complained about Sarah Palin’s and Wayne Wayne LaPierre’s wardrobe budget do not really care about exorbitant expenses.
    They will handwave the same standard applied to them

    Impeach Drumpf YYYEEEEEAAAAGGHHHHH.

    ReplyReply
    20
  48. drj says:

    @Monala:

    We have three statements here:

    1) It’s reasonable to think it’s ridiculous (i.e. not manly enough) if a man (Edwards) gets an expensive haircut.

    2) It’s NOT ridiculous if a woman (AOC) gets an expensive haircut.

    3) It’s unreasonable to expect that a woman (AOC) would hold herself to the same (lower) grooming standards as her male peer (Sessions).

    Now you try to parse these statements in such a way that it doesn’t follow that women should (in the prescriptive sense of the word) take more effort to look good than men.

    And no, this take isn’t as bad as the one on Warren. If only because this is implied rather than explicitly stated.

    But even so, we are dealing with double standards that would have society impose a greater burden on women than men, and mostly for the benefit of men, to boot.

    ReplyReply
  49. Blue Galangal says:

    @KM: My sympathies on the chronic migraines. I too suffer.

    Everything you said and then some – and having a workplace that understands, even imperfectly, is wonderful. These are the kinds of things that figure into many women’s calculus of employment (if we are fortunate enough to have that choice).

    I have a business trip to Egypt in November, a first for me (up to now it’s solely been China). Fortunately I have leggings I routinely wear in winter, but I’m casting about for conservative dresses that I can also wear to work here in the US. My male colleagues? Suit and tie, their elbows and knees are already covered. I don’t even know where to start with footwear.

    ReplyReply
  50. charon says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Either you’re a new Jenos troll or someone who got zero on the reading comprehension of the SAT. Re-read James’ article.

    A) She has her own blog.

    B) She is one of the front pagers at Balloon Juice.

    ReplyReply
  51. Gustopher says:

    @drj:

    1) It’s reasonable to think it’s ridiculous (i.e. not manly enough) if a man (Edwards) gets an expensive haircut.

    2) It’s NOT ridiculous if a woman (AOC) gets an expensive haircut.

    3) It’s unreasonable to expect that a woman (AOC) would hold herself to the same (lower) grooming standards as her male peer (Sessions).

    Now you try to parse these statements in such a way that it doesn’t follow that women should (in the prescriptive sense of the word) take more effort to look good than men.

    1: When you consider John Edward’s haircut cost per family, it’s really quite reasonable.

    2: Society has different expectations for men and women (fair or unfair) and it is unreasonable to believe that AOC must fight every single expectation or battle.

    3: No one should have to look like Jeff Sessions.

    On the key point, 2, there is not the “women should make themselves look better” but a recognition that women often do spend more to make themselves look better, and that criticizing them for that is wrong because they should be able to if they want to (even if men don’t understand it, hence the lowlights comment), and they are basically forced to anyway.

    ReplyReply
    11
  52. JK Brown says:

    AOC certainly seems to have overcome her poverty from just a year ago. It is the Congressional way. Poverty, followed by sudden riches, for many.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the youngest woman ever elected to Congress—she still can’t afford an apartment in D.C.

    –CNBC, November 2018

    ReplyReply
    1
    24
  53. Gustopher says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    James, it would be a good idea for you to listen, rather than opine, for a while on women’s issues.

    In general, telling someone to shut up is seldom a way to win hearts and minds.

    Also, in this specific case, James Joyner notices sexist attack against AOC, and it registers as wrong despite his own blind spots about women’s issues… this is some pretty big progress. This is what someone learning looks like.

    Sure, he’s not diving into the history of the societal expectations put on men and women, and he’s mocking the existence of lowlights, and theres a touch of “those women sure do like to purty themselves up”, but mostly it’s him recognizing and mocking a dumb sexist attack.

    ReplyReply
    11
  54. Neil Hudelson says:

    @JKB:

    Yes, going from bartenders’ wages + tips to a $175,000 salary does, indeed, improve one’s financial outlook.

    Did you have a point?

    ReplyReply
    26
    1
  55. Dutchgirl says:

    That Dr. Joyner’s post doesn’t dismantle systemic gender inequality shouldn’t be surprising considering the source material he is commenting on. He is engaged in pointing out the holes in an article that tries to “slam” AOC for what is (for better or worse) a normal thing.

    ReplyReply
    10
  56. Anonne says:

    This is the photoshoot suit “scandal” all over again. OHHH look at how these socialists, when they get into power, waste and aggrandize themselves! *faints*

    Please.

    ReplyReply
  57. mattbernius says:

    It’s striking profile in courage that a number of Trump supporters who have opted to opine on this particular topic with their usual wit and wisdom while studiously avoiding the topic of the abandonment of the Kurds (currently three different posts that went up well before their comments).

    ReplyReply
    11
  58. Gustopher says:

    @drj:

    ETA: to go full SJW on you:

    I dont really understand the need to spend so much money on this stuff

    You never needed to understand, because nobody was ever going to give you shit for not having your hair done in a fancy way.

    This, my friend, is a case of “male privilege” in the wild.

    Counterpoint: you don’t need to understand everything about everyone. You can let people live their lives without scrutinizing every single thing.

    1. Women spend more on hair than men in general
    2. Article criticizes women for spending more than Jeff Sessions on hair.
    3. Price is inline with what other women pay

    You can tell the article is bullshit and call it out for being bullshit even without getting into why women pay more for hair care.

    If you have a general demeanor of leaving people to their own devices (which more people should have, by the way), some nuance gets missed. But also, gay folks can go live their gay lives, poor people applying for food stamps don’t get a lot of scrutiny to make sure they are deserving poor, and black folks get to listen to their awful hip-hop without it terrifying white folks. And women get to make themselves look pretty, either because they want to or they are forced to by societal pressures that they have internalized to the point where they think they want to.

    You don’t have an obligation to proactively foresee every injustice and slight in the world. A good person will, however, usually listen when they are pointed out.

    ReplyReply
  59. Gustopher says:

    “AOC is the Eva Peron of American politics. She preaches socialism while living the life of the privileged,” said Richard Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, referencing the former first lady of Argentina who was known for dressing in designer gowns and jewels while advocating a socialist agenda.

    I really want an AOC musical now.

    And, socialists don’t want everyone to be poor. They want everyone to be middle class.

    And democratic socialists don’t even necessarily want that, they want a very healthy safety net.

    But, now I really want an AOC musical. “Don’t cry for me, Oklahoma / The truth is I serve Queens…”

    ReplyReply
    21
  60. KM says:

    @Gustopher :
    LOL, ditto. Make sure to charge Hamilton-level prices and not do shows in red states; hmmm, on second thought, offer a ridiculously huge discount on travel packages if one can provide a D voter registration since we can’t forget our brothers and sisters behind enemy lines.

    I want to see conservatives whine about elitist, overpriced socialist plays that discriminate against the forgotten man by not bringing the AOC they crave! How dare we make them pay full price and drive out of their way so they can get their *cough* hate on!

    ReplyReply
  61. gVOR08 says:

    I never know how to react to these things. I understand and mostly approve of James intent. And, as with trolls in these threads, you hate to let nonsense go unchallenged. But dyam, every minute spent on this is a little further down the Trump/RW media rabbit hole.

    It’s not going to get any better. They’re going to try to make AOC or Tlaib the face of the party. They’ll throw every piece of poo they can find or invent at whoever gets within sight of the nomination. Then if anything sticks, even a little, they’ll amp it up to 11. It’s a Gish Gallop. They can feed it into the puke funnel faster than anyone can react to it.

    ReplyReply
  62. Barry says:

    @charon: ” She is one of the front pagers at Balloon Juice.”

    She’s a good person, she just had a Gawd-awful brain fart when reading the article. It’s uncharacteristic of her.

    ReplyReply
    7
    1
  63. Sirkowski says:

    I don’t think Eva Perón ever preached socialism.

    ReplyReply
  64. JK Brown says:

    @Neil Hudelson: Both stories are the same high-minded journalism we’ve come to expect.

    ReplyReply
  65. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Paul L.: You’re really going to compare a $300,000 wardrobe budget to a $300 haircut? Really?

    ReplyReply
  66. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @mattbernius: Selective reading.

    @Just nutha ignint cracker: Really.

    ReplyReply
  67. Jen says:

    @Gustopher:
    @KM:

    Like the children’s book about the crocodiles (alligators? I can’t remember) and snakes in the water-slide border moat, I am supportive of this creative endeavor. 10/10 would watch.

    ReplyReply
  68. wr says:

    @JK Brown: “AOC certainly seems to have overcome her poverty from just a year ago. It is the Congressional way. Poverty, followed by sudden riches, for many.”

    Yes, you fucking moron, because she is now being paid a congressperson’s salary of roughly $175,000 per year.

    ReplyReply
  69. Neil Hudelson says:

    @JK Brown:

    Really? Can you explain how this:

    “AOC certainly seems to have overcome her poverty from just a year ago. It is the Congressional way. Poverty, followed by sudden riches, for many.”

    Is a critique on journalism?

    ReplyReply
  70. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    The minute we start getting into details about Trumps grooming, then we can talk about AOC’s.
    How long does it take to produce that rat’s nest on his head?
    How much hairspray does he use to cement it in place?
    How long is the hair that get’s teased up and around his empty skull?
    Has he had hair transplanted from his fat ass?
    Let’s get into all the details of Trump’s atrocious coif…then we can talk about AOC’s run-of-the-mill hair cut.

    ReplyReply
  71. Jen says:

    @JK Brown: Let’s also keep in mind that that $175K salary is a) before taxes; and b) must support residences in two of the country’s most expensive cities.

    She’s certainly doing better than bar tending, but she’s not in Mitch McConnell range either.

    ReplyReply
  72. MarkedMan says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker: I don’t even read Paul’s comments but became curious when I saw your reply. And by god I agree with him. Sarah Palin’s wardrobe was a non-story to me. People gave her money to run for office. She thought these clothes were important to the way she presents. Maybe she was right and maybe she was wrong but it’s between her and her donors. End of story. If it was my tax dollars I’d say limit them all to $200 worth of clothes at Target, but it’s donor money, not taxes. I think it is fine to report on it, but deriving moral outrage from it is a sucker’s game.

    ReplyReply
  73. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @MarkedMan:

    And by god I agree with him.

    Bet that hurt to type….

    ReplyReply
  74. MarkedMan says:

    I’ll add that I think the critiques against Trump’s clothes and hair shouldn’t concern me either, according to my ethics but, alas, they do. They are just so bizarre. In fairness, his clothing seems more normal now, but when he started out he wore those ridiculous baggy, ill cut suits and the ludicrous red ties hanging down to mid crotch. I read somewhere that he had specific ritual beliefs surrounding these, beyond just the “baggy clothes hide flub” mistake. For example, he told someone that a tie should go down to a man’s penis because it intimidated lesser men.

    So yeah, I’m not a saint. I laugh at him about his hair and clothes.

    ReplyReply
  75. MarkedMan says:

    @Daryl and his brother Darryl: I may have to drown my sorrows tonight….

    ReplyReply
  76. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @MarkedMan:

    They are just so bizarre.

    If some guy with that shitty comb-over and the fake tan and the ridiculously fitting clown suit walked into any local bar in the country he would be laughed right back out the door. He looks like a fuqing clown. But 40% of the country thinks Trump is an alpha male. Alfalfa male is more like it.

    ReplyReply
  77. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: I thought the second “really” would mark the question as rhetorical. My bad. 😛

    ReplyReply
  78. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @MarkedMan: I agree with you on Palin. The $300,000 wardrobe budget is from a GQ article on La Pierre, and it seems that he also tried to expense at least some of it as charges to the advertising agency that represented the NRA. link
    The Palin shopping spree was half that, but may still have been improper use of organizational funds.
    ETA: My take on Trump’s suits fitting better is that he’s gained weight from being even more inactive as President than he was as a real estate/branding grifter.

    ReplyReply
  79. Blue Galangal says:

    @wr: *peers over glasses* “I believe it’s spelled ‘moran.'”

    ReplyReply
  80. Tyrell says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: I remember when John Edwards ran around during the campaign dressing and acting like the guy next door. What a phony and jerk.
    AOC seems to be doing the same thing. Crying about being broke then spending that amount on a hairdo. I would like to see her do that in some of these socialist/communist countries she likes so much.

    ReplyReply
    1
    17
  81. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Tyrell:

    I would like to see her do that in some of these socialist/communist countries she likes so much.

    Name them fuckhead. Hell’s bells, name one. And I want links to reputable sites quoting her as saying she “likes these socialist/communist countries she likes so much.”

    Take note, I want quotes, with links to her speeches, at reputable sites known for not doctoring video, with dates and locations for the speeches.

    Because really, I detect a whole lot of koolaide in your comment.

    ReplyReply
    11
  82. Albert Einstein says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    Neither. Google Cheryl Rofer.

    People are not always who they seem to be. As to the comment, yeah, well, that’s just, like, her opinion, man.

    ReplyReply
  83. Jax says:

    @Tyrell: Congratulations, Tyrell. The original piece in the Washington Times was intended to make people like you get mad because, I mean, really, HOW DARE AOC complain about being broke and then get a $300 haircut? You fell for it, your very own “lamestream media” squirreled you from having to think very hard about all of the other VERY BAD THINGS that are happening right now.

    James at least attempted to call out the stupidity of the original article and of conservatives getting angry about it, despite the way it was taken in some of the comments.

    People who were our allies in the fight against ISIS (actual terrorists) are currently dying because of Trump, Tyrell (and the rest of our resident Trumpies), and you’re over here commenting on AOC’s freakin haircut.

    ReplyReply
    10
  84. Teve says:

    For what it’s worth I love Wayne LaPierre ripping off the NRA and spending millions of their bucks on luxury Italian clothes, a mansion, fancy European vacations, etc. In fact if he got their credit card and ran up 100 million dollars getting tennis lessons from Rafael Nadal and drunk driving Bugattis into the Potomac I’d laugh even harder. I hope it’s going on at other dipshit orgs. I hope right now somebody’s raiding Focus on the Family’s bank accounts to buy every Rolex Presidential they can find. I hope somebody at Judicial Watch is right now wondering what this enormous wire transfer to Cesar’s Palace last month was about.

    If you leave the Trumpers with their money they’ll probably do something terrible with it. I hope Wayne LaPierre is having his fall wardrobe sewn entirely from Hermes scarves bought retail in Paris. 🙂

    ReplyReply
  85. MarkedMan says:

    Tyrell is a troll. The old fashioned kind.

    ReplyReply
  86. Gustopher says:

    @Teve: I have similar feelings about Sarah Palin. I wish her a life of luxury at the expense of right wing idiots she fleeces.

    Better she blow the money on clothes or cocaine or whatever than it be spent usefully opposing things I care about. Go Sarah.

    She should probably consider running for President.

    ReplyReply
  87. MarkedMan says:

    @Teve:

    For what it’s worth I love Wayne LaPierre ripping off the NRA and spending millions of their bucks on luxury Italian clothes, a mansion, fancy European vacations, etc.

    FWIW, I think the Dems have a small chance of taking the Senate simply because the Trump Campaign insisted upon, and got, control of the combined Republican campaign budget. How much of that money will be spent on worthless ads (produced by a shadow company of the people who ok’d the budget to produce them) or on yet more fundraisers preaching to the choir at Mar a Lago?

    ReplyReply
  88. Gustopher says:

    @Tyrell: Meh. You’re out of character.

    Also, even Jesus enjoyed some fine oils, according to the Gospel of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice. One need not deny the self.

    ReplyReply
  89. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Teve: 🙂 😀 😛

    ReplyReply
  90. grumpy realist says:

    @MarkedMan: I remember when Callista Gingrich was more in the news I made some comment about wondering when the alien lifeform living on her head would jump off and over to Trump’s scalp to make mad passionate love with the alien lifeform living on his head.

    And what their offspring would look like, if any.

    ReplyReply
  91. Jax says:

    @MarkedMan: I hope McConnell goes down with the Senate ship.

    ReplyReply
  92. micahel reynolds says:

    My youngest, who is Chinese by birth, once had her hair dyed blue. This required bleaching jet black to white. Seven hours, $700 dollars before tip. And I tip well. You make more money, you get more toys.

    I also voted to raise my own taxes in supporting Obama, and again under whatever the California prop was, and voting for Jerry Brown.

    There is zero conflict there. I’ll pay what I need to pay to help people with less, and what I do with the rest is no one’s fkin bizniss.

    Also, I saved quite a bit going bald.

    ReplyReply
  93. michael reynolds says:

    My youngest, who is Chinese by birth, once had her hair dyed blue. This required bleaching jet black to white. Seven hours, $700 dollars before tip. And I tip well. You make more money, you get more toys.

    I also voted to raise my own taxes in supporting Obama, and again under whatever the California prop was, and voting for Jerry Brown.

    There is zero conflict there. I’ll pay what I need to pay to help people with less, and what I do with the rest is no one’s fkin bizniss.

    Also, I saved quite a bit going bald.

    ReplyReply
  94. michael reynolds says:

    BTW, I read James’ piece as sarcasm. Not quite sure why anyone got worked up.

    ReplyReply
  95. Gustopher says:

    Am I the only one eagerly awaiting a “Discourse, Part 3” post by James Joyner?

    90 comments on a frivolous post mocking someone for complaining about a haircut, which I think James might have meant as tossing a bone to the SJWs, and which blew up upon landing….

    I get that fucking over the Kurds was split into three posts, and a whole lot of people don’t want to think about how badly the Kurds are getting fucked over (badly), or have anything to say on the subject other than virtue signaling (not fucking over the Kurds is a fine virtue to signal, by the way), so everything points here. But I’m really not understanding the vehemence this post created.

    I think OTB might need a conservative feminist as a regular poster. Conservative because all our hosts are conservative, and feminist because it’s clearly a viewpoint that is missing. Or maybe just female.

    (I would also love posts by James Joyner’s daughters, explaining how their father has embarrassed them this week*, but I don’t know how old they are, and whether they are interested.)

    ——
    *: I do not think I would be any less embarrassing.

    ReplyReply
    1
    1
  96. Gustopher says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Also, I saved quite a bit going bald

    I hope however you were getting your hair done before it was gone, if you’re saving quite a bit now, that it was magnificent.

    It’s pretty easy to get a man to “good enough”, but magnificent takes work. (Women have to hit magnificent on a regular basis, but that’s another matter)

    (I have had long, luxurious locks of hair, sparkling silver with their natural color or lack thereof, and it was a crapload of work to maintain.)

    ReplyReply
  97. michael reynolds says:

    @Gustopher:
    At no time has my hair ever been magnificent. I had what the Beach Boys referred to as a ‘bushy, bushy blond hairdo.’

    ReplyReply
  98. Pylon says:

    In the olden days (i.e. my 20s) the difference in cost between men and women was justified by (a) the simplicity of men’s cuts and (b) an argument that men go in every couple weeks for a trim, so it evens out.

    I never bought it but even if it was true then it ain’t now.

    ReplyReply
  99. Blue Galangal says:

    @Gustopher:

    I think OTB might need a conservative feminist as a regular poster. Conservative because all our hosts are conservative, and feminist because it’s clearly a viewpoint that is missing. Or maybe just female.

    You’d have better luck with the “just” female than with the “conservative feminist” qualifier, imho.

    ReplyReply
  100. gVOR08 says:

    @Gustopher:

    I think OTB might need a conservative feminist as a regular poster. Conservative because all our hosts are conservative, and feminist because it’s clearly a viewpoint that is missing. Or maybe just female.

    I would encourage James to inquire as to whether Cheryl Rofer might be interested. She’d commented here a few times before these recent posts.

    ReplyReply
  101. al Ameda says:

    I have millennial aged daughters and I’m not sure what the problem is here. Yes, $300 is a lot of money but DC is not cheap. Many women must spend a lot of money on regular hair maintenance, and occasionally, if they choose to change the style and look dramatically, they have to spend more than a lot.

    That said. I love it that conservatives are obsessed with AOC. I think that what galls them is that she has no qualms about addressing right wing barbs, needles, and criticisms head on. She does not shy from contact.

    Also, I think she’s comported herself well in hearings. She comes prepared and stays on point.

    ReplyReply
  102. de stijl says:

    @Teve:

    “Cesar’s Palace”

    I’m picturing a low-end casino in Laughlin catering to clients used to a 1.5 star experience and nickel slots.

    Cesar is reportedly planning to add to his empire by adding a new property called “Ballagio” for that sweet bingo money.

    ReplyReply
  103. de stijl says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Huarache sandals, too?

    ReplyReply
  104. Gustopher says:

    AOC photoshopped with Jeff Session’s hair….

    https://twitter.com/parkermolloy/status/1182615635681075201?s=21

    ReplyReply
  105. de stijl says:

    @Gustopher:

    How can a quickie ‘shop pic be the awesomest thing you’ve ever seen be simultaneously the most disturbing thing you’ve ever seen?

    Thanks, I guess – kinda. I’m very conflicted.

    (Btw, Session’s $20 haircut ain’t half bad. The WH barber is quite skilled.)

    ReplyReply
  106. @drj:

    I don’t think it was done with intent, but the Jeff Sessions/Flowbee line nonetheless gave it away, I think.

    I read that line as a sarcastic dig at critics. In other words: so, you think she shouldn’t spend $300 on a haircut, why not insist she cut her own hair (i.e., the flowbee ref).

    I get your basic point, but there are two conversations here:

    1. It is silly to criticize someone for their haircuts, especially given the inequities that exist in cost for women v. men (and I think this is what the post is about).

    and

    2. The underlying inequities about expectations on men and women in regards to how they look in professional settings.

    I think you are not being fair to James in regards to #2 as I do not see this an endorsement.

    Really, I think this post is more in the “President X golfs too much” or “President X vacations too much” genre. In this case a silly gotcha because AOC is supposedly Che Guevara or something.

    ReplyReply
  107. @drj:

    1) It’s reasonable to think it’s ridiculous (i.e. not manly enough) if a man (Edwards) gets an expensive haircut.

    But he didn’t say that. Not at all. He is making a reference, with a little snark, to events back in the 2004 (IIRC) campaign.

    I think you are letting some of your own biases color your impressions here.

    ReplyReply
  108. charon says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    2. The underlying inequities about expectations on men and women in regards to how they look in professional settings.

    There is a whole post on that at PA:

    https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/10/11/the-real-scandal-behind-aocs-haircut/

    Headline and subhead:

    The Real Scandal Behind AOC’s Haircut
    Women in power have to pay a “female tax” that their male counterparts do not.

    ReplyReply
  109. @JK Brown:

    November 2018

    Having not been sworn in right after her election, she was not yet being paid a congressional salary.

    Why is this stuff so hard to understand? Why is it always about snark and gotcha as opposed to thinking through a statement?

    ReplyReply
  110. charon says:

    @charon:

    From that linky:

    On top of the enormous financial impact, these beauty regimens require these women to take the time out of their busy schedules to attend to their appearances in a way that men in power are spared. Women in power must pay a significant tax on their limited time to sit for manicures, blowouts, brow waxes, and braids, rather than meeting with constituents, reviewing legislation, conducting investigations, chasing a story, traveling to their districts, reviewing their notes, or spending time with their families.

    The story about AOC’s haircut is the story about how women continue to face enormous—and often superficially imposed—obstacles to achieving power and influence. Women in power must be more than mentally prepared for work, knowledgeable of the issues, ready to defend themselves and their work on a moment’s notice, and braced to fend off sexism and harassment.

    ReplyReply
  111. CarolDuhart2 says:

    @Tyrell: The socialists dress well too. Your idea of socialism goes back to the French Revolution and such when dressing fancy was considered a sign of the “bougie” person who didn’t care about the poor. That was when clothes were trimmed with gold and pearls, and the “elite” spent money on that instead of helping the poor.

    But those days are long over. For one thing, decent clothes are more affordable, and the idea of class solidarity by wearing raggedly clothes and hair was done in by 1970. Nowadays, even the remaining ones wear decent clothes and have their hair done, even in a restrained way.

    Also, I must remind you that she also represents her constituents, and was voted in by them, in a fashion conscious city. She needs to at least keep up appearances for the cameras and her constituents.

    ReplyReply
  112. @Tyrell:

    Crying about being broke then spending that amount on a hairdo.

    Again, the stories about AOC’s money troubles were in the context of moving to Washington and setting up an office BEFORE SHE STARTED DRAWING A SALARY.

    What you are demonstrating here is buying into right wing narratives uncritically (both in terms of the initial cost issue and the haircut).

    ReplyReply
  113. @Gustopher:

    90 comments on a frivolous post mocking someone for complaining about a haircut, which I think James might have meant as tossing a bone to the SJWs, and which blew up upon landing….

    No. This is just exactly the kind of post that garners tons of comments. I can attest to that after 16+ years of blogging.

    Conservative because all our hosts are conservative, and feminist because it’s clearly a viewpoint that is missing.

    That assessment depends both on one’s definition of “conservative” and who you ask to make the assessment.

    Or maybe just female.

    I, and I know James, would welcome a female contributor (as would Doug, I am sure). Recruiting appropriate authors is not easy, however. James has actively tried.

    (I would also love posts by James Joyner’s daughters, explaining how their father has embarrassed them this week*, but I don’t know how old they are, and whether they are interested.)

    If this is a joke about the fact that all children are embarrassed their parents, all well and good. If it is dig, I don’t think it appropriate or fair.

    ReplyReply
  114. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @gVOR08: Hating to be this guy ( 😉 ), but even thougth Cheryl Rofer would be interesting, a younger voice would be better. We will never prepare another generation to take over when we’ve finally all given up our power to the Grim Reaper if we keep giving the jobs that are available to ourselves and our peers.

    ReplyReply
  115. de stijl says:

    If AOC isn’t wearing a hair shirt and living in a cave then she’s a hypocrite, is the extremely reductive “reasoning”.

    It’s so foolish, it’s barely worth challenging.

    ReplyReply
  116. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @de stijl: Don’t be knockin’ nickel slots! Lot of fun for less than a movie ticket.

    ReplyReply
  117. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: If they think before they speak, they’ll never get to say anything?

    ReplyReply
  118. charon says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:

    Cheryl Rofer

    I have a hard time seeing how that could work anyway. She already cross-posts all of the posts on her own blog to Balloon Juice, I have a difficult time seeing anyone cross-posting from their own blog to two other blogs.

    ReplyReply
  119. Just nutha ignint cracker d says:

    @CarolDuhart2: And I believe that it was Francois Mitterrand’s wife who noted that even though she was not particularly comfortable wearing clothes from Paris design houses and didn’t care for them personally, France was a center of the fashion industry and that industry deserved appropriate representation as much as any other important industry or group in the country. It’s part of the job of representing the people.

    ReplyReply
  120. de stijl says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:

    I love Laughlin. It is to Reno as Reno is to Vegas.

    Nickel slots, cheap buffets, inexpensive hotels. Easy bus ride weekend from Phoenix – leave Friday and back on Sunday afternoon.

    Not the most glamorous, but Laughlin knows where it is in the hierarchy and adapts to pull the most money out of less affluent tourists.

    I still love the “Cesar’s Palace” typo. It amuses me.

    ReplyReply
  121. Teve says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Having not been sworn in right after her election, she was not yet being paid a congressional salary.

    Why is this stuff so hard to understand? Why is it always about snark and gotcha as opposed to thinking through a statement?

    I can’t think of a nice answer to this. 😀

    ReplyReply
  122. Teve says:

    @de stijl: I don’t know why my voice recognition spelled it Cesar. Cesar Chavez maybe? the other thing I don’t understand about voice recognition is even when it does an amazing job spelling an unusual name like Greta thunberg, it capitalizes the first name and lowercases the second name, like it did right there. What the fuck is that about?

    ReplyReply
  123. de stijl says:

    @Teve:

    Everybody knew you were going for Caesar’s Palace. Your point was valid. And illuminative. I upvoted you before I got goofing on Cesar’s purported Laughlin properties.

    I just sorta fixated on Cesar and his purported casino in Laughlin because the conceit amused me. I wasn’t dissing you; I was riffing on a cool typo.

    ReplyReply
  124. Teve says:

    @de stijl: oh I don’t care if you are cracking on me, I use voice rec on my phone because I’m too lazy to get my laptop out. I generally proofread but I still miss the voice rec typos all the time. The other day I missed Even Horizon. being 43 and having tried one of the original dragon programs like in the 90s, I use it all the time because it’s like fucking magic to me. But it still does bizarre things like that capitalization thing that I simply cannot understand. And I don’t understand why it would pick that spelling of Cesar because the casino, the salad, the Roman guy, and the guy who invented the salad are spelled with the ae. Maybe Google Voice has a boner for Cesar Romero? Cesar Milan?

    ReplyReply
  125. Gustopher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    If this is a joke about the fact that all children are embarrassed their parents, all well and good. If it is dig, I don’t think it appropriate or fair.

    What if it’s both? James has blind spots, and is not what the kids today would call “woke.” I suspect his daughters (as younger and more female), roll their eyes a lot if they read his posts on social issues. If they are normalish kids of an appropriate age.

    But mostly it was a dumb joke.

    1) It’s reasonable to think it’s ridiculous (i.e. not manly enough) if a man (Edwards) gets an expensive haircut.

    But he didn’t say that. Not at all. He is making a reference, with a little snark, to events back in the 2004 (IIRC) campaign.

    Speaking of dumb jokes… He definitely implied it. Tongue in cheek, sure, and meant with no harm, but definitely a bit of it’s ridiculous for a straight manly man to put so much effort and cost into his hair.

    An eyeroll worthy moment.

    And, Edwards has the last laugh because he was so manly he had not just one, but two(!) perfectly traditional families. Twice the traditional manly man.

    ReplyReply
  126. de stijl says:

    There is a song I both love and hate.

    Fergie – Glamorous

    She spells it out. G L A M O R O U S

    It’s super cheesy pop, but great super cheesy pop. But one of the messages of the song is that poor people suck and should just go home. I do not hold with that at all.

    ReplyReply
  127. Barry says:

    @Blue Galangal: “You’d have better luck with the “just” female than with the “conservative feminist” qualifier, imho.”

    You’d have better luck with ‘hermaphrodite who has both born and fathered a child’.

    ReplyReply
  128. Mike Schilling says:

    (The delays turned out to have been virtually non-existent, but I must confess to not remembering the after-the-fact corrections.)

    They’re the main thing I remember, but the right-wing media constantly violating the commandment against false witness is a pet peeve of mine.

    ReplyReply
  129. Mike Schilling says:

    @MarkedMan:

    GHWB had been shown a scanner that could read mangled and torn bar codes and thought that was impressive (it was.) Then it was reported as if he’d never seen a scanner before.

    ReplyReply

Speak Your Mind

*