I think I’ve found a peaceful middle way, where I’m absolutely up to date on skincare/beauty, but too goddam lazy to do a thing about it.Women can’t win either way. We either engage in beauty treatments because of the patriarchy or disengage because we are stern feminists. I’ve lost track of the ongoing debate but by the last tally women are seemingly incapable of doing anything to their physique unless there are ulterior motives for it. It’s bad if we want to ‘look ourselves’ and it’s bad if we ‘let ourself go’. (Btw both expressions are).
It is an interesting point, personally I think 'skin health' can be loaded (like the stereotypical assumption that people with acne are unhealthy), whilst grooming sounds like making do with what you have. It is gendered though definitely, and I wish 'fast fashion' was replaced with 'fast textiles', because it overlooks things like new season football shirts and, in my mind, assumes the consumer is a young woman in primark/boohoo, rather than any other consumer buying fabric items.@NotDumbNotBlonde I like “skin health” actually. Less loaded, more neutral. I don’t want to do “beauty” I’m no looker and never really will be. I just want to look ok and decent.
Grooming makes me think of ponies and cats, I guess as men have hairy faces it makes sense they get groomed?
Omg that's such nasty manipulation!Almost the scariest thing is her saying at the end of the Radio 5 programme something like: To anyone listening, if you ever feel tempted to go to that site just out of curiosity to have a look at what's being said, don't - because you'll be adding to their Google results and indirectly helping to destroy lives.
Yeah, I was thinking that a lot of what we look for in 'great' skin is merely superficial, and not related to its health - like small pores and no scarring, for example.It is an interesting point, personally I think 'skin health' can be loaded (like the stereotypical assumption that people with acne are unhealthy), whilst grooming sounds like making do with what you have. It is gendered though definitely, and I wish 'fast fashion' was replaced with 'fast textiles', because it overlooks things like new season football shirts and, in my mind, assumes the consumer is a young woman in primark/boohoo, rather than any other consumer buying fabric items.
It was rather sinister, take what I say at face value without any evidence and don't you dare think for yourself based on proof. Pretty much the dictionary definition of disinformation.Almost the scariest thing is her saying at the end of the Radio 5 programme something like: To anyone listening, if you ever feel tempted to go to that site just out of curiosity to have a look at what's being said, don't - because you'll be adding to their Google results and indirectly helping to destroy lives.
Sali has some gall walking past the Orwell statue outside the beeb to make her rantumentary.It was rather sinister, take what I say at face value without any evidence and don't you dare think for yourself based on proof. Pretty much the dictionary definition of disinformation.
Many people would (wrongly) assume that the BBC did basic fact checking.
After SH had announced that she was making a 'documentary' for BBC Radio 4, I posted this here (11 September):The new director general should probably hear of this debacle, it does highlight the current low standards and shocking lack of impartiality. A tabloid hack churning out articles all day would have done more investigation.
In the influencer world accepting a freebie and posting about it is #supportinglocalbusinesses and they generally feel it's philanthropic thing to do.Pay, you tight arse hypocrites.
Exactly. And the warning to lurkers was well weird, too! She just doesn't want anyone reading here so she's trying to scare them off doing so. It clearly hasn't worked though judging by the new members on this thread!It was rather sinister, take what I say at face value without any evidence and don't you dare think for yourself based on proof. Pretty much the dictionary definition of disinformation.
Many people would (wrongly) assume that the BBC did basic fact checking.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?