Things That Matter

AOC’s Average Priced Haircut Has Set Off A Twitter Storm On The Right But She’s Clapping Back

There is a lot that offends people about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: her Green New Deal, her socialism, her dancing, her previous employment as a bar-tender, and now, apparently, her hair.

On Wednesday, a story from a conservative news outlet that shall not be named—nor linked to—attempted to manufacture outrage over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s hair salon bill: There was a reported $80 cut, $180 for lowlights, and pure speculation about a $52 tip, for a grand total of approximately $312. The message? How dare a democratic socialist—and someone in the public eye whose appearance very much matters, for better or for worse—get a haircut at market price for a major metropolis?

Other publications have subsequently seized on the invented “controversy,” even if no one seems truly mad about it except for conservative talking heads. On the contrary, much of the outrage online seems to be on AOC’s behalf—that harping on her haircut is typical sexism and hypocrisy. How quickly the right is quick to ignore Mitt Romeny’s comparably priced $70 cut back in 2011, or John Edward’s $1,250 hair bills from 2007.

But as usual there isn’t much need to come to AOC’s defense when, in fact, no one is better at crafting the perfect response to hypocrisy and nonsense than AOC herself.

According to the paper, a self-described Democratic-Socialist shouldn’t be paying fair market price for a haircut.

“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 article began.

Many on the right were incensed that the congresswoman hadn’t paid a visit to the subsidized Capital Hill barbershop.

Others drew attention to the article’s assertion that Ocasio-Cortez “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,” the article said.

“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,” the article acknowledges.

Many questioned the choice of Jeff Sessions as a model. “Damn, why didn’t AOC ask for a rec from hair icon *checks notes* Jeff Sessions?” wrote one person.

Of course, AOC had the perfect response to all this BS.

The New York congresswoman noted that if you’re mad about her $80 haircut, which, by the way, she paid for herself, you’re bound to hate vice president Mike Pence’s $600,000 limo bill from his official visit to Ireland last month, which, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Pence billed to taxpayers.

Citing State Department contracts, CREW writes that Pence racked up the steep bill because, despite meetings in Dublin, the VP elected to drive four hours away in order to stay at…you guessed it…President Trump’s golf resort in Doonbeg.

So why is AOC’s private salon bill up for debate while Pence’s public limo tab flies under the radar? Sexism. Pure and simple.

And women on Twitter defended the Congresswoman, saying the ones who should be checking their privilege in the haircare wars were men.

It’s obvious men clearly have no idea how much women were routinely charged for haircuts and colour treatments.

“Sorry, you don’t get to create beauty standards that require women to spend hundreds or thousands a year to be considered presentable and then hate us for it,” tweeted the writer Jessica Valenti.

Right now it’s her hair, but the right has come for AOC for so many different things it’s hard to keep track.

And let’s be real. Even if AOC had followed the ‘advice’ and got a $20 bowl cut, she’d still drive them crazy because she is both effective and polished – a fact that makes her feel all that more threatening to her critics.

In the past, her clothes were the “controversy,” from that from-behind photo taken without her consent and tweeted (and later deleted) to the manufactured “outrage” over the borrowed $3,000 Gabriela Hearst suit she wore, fleetingly, for a photo shoot in Interview magazine. It’s almost as if people don’t think AOC deserves to dress, and look, the part of congresswoman.

Reliably, AOC had the sharpest reply to the latest wave of attention around her appearance. “Our policies, like Medicare for All, advance prosperity for working people,” she tweeted on Thursday of Democratic socialism. As for her critics: “They’re just mad we look good doing it.” Now that’s a hair flip.

Right-Wing Pundit Tomi Lahren Dressed Up As AOC For Halloween And Twitter Had Some Thoughts

Things That Matter

Right-Wing Pundit Tomi Lahren Dressed Up As AOC For Halloween And Twitter Had Some Thoughts

Conservative political commentator and Fox Nation host Tomi Lahren dressed up as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in order to mock the progressive congresswoman. It appears Lahren, has a knack for picking on Latinas from The Bronx. The pundit came under fire this year when she insulted Cardi B. The rapper kindly let Lahren know that she would “dog walk” her. 

Lahren, who was fired from her previous job at The Blaze when she dissented from her employers and admitted she was pro-choice, said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who wants to pass policies that will save the world from global warming, is scarier than any other monster she’s seen. 

Tomi Lahren dressed up as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for Halloween.

Lahren posted a photo of herself dressed up as AOC in a desperate attempt to someone how diminish the efforts of the Latinx congresswoman who just so happens to be the youngest congressperson in history after unseating an incumbent. 

“This Halloween I decided to dress up as the thing that scares me most, the Democratic Dimwit Darling herself. I’m not afraid of ghouls, ghosts, zombies or political incorrectness. I am far more terrified AOC was actually elected to the United States Congress. Talk about a haunted House,” Lahren posted on Instagram without editing for grammar. 

In the photo, she is wearing a dark brown wig, glasses, blazer, and holding fake copies of the Green New Deal, a policy proposal that would address climate change and economic inequality, and the Communist Manifesto, a widely read ideology that has empowered millions of poor and marginalized people – or as Lahren would put it “scary” stuff. Moreover, AOC is a Democratic Socialist not a communist. 

Lahren who has 1.5 million followers on Twitter decided to dress up as Ocasio-Cortez who has 5.7 million followers on Twitter. Wonder why? Twitter users had their own thoughts. 

Social media users see through Lahren’s transparent stunt for attention. 

Lahren’s caption on Instagram differed from her Twitter caption where she attempted to malign AOC for being a “former bartender.” Many Twitter users assessed that Lahren was using the stunt to increase her profile, considering AOC is the more famous of the two and known to make headlines. 

“I don’t know who Tomi Lahren is… Must be pretty irrelevant looking for some kind of attention. They always say mocking someone is the greatest form of flattery,” one user tweeted. 

“Only 2yrs older than you and AOC is in Congress electrifying the nation and you are dressing up like her for Halloween and don’t even see the irony. I bet she does scare you–AOC exemplifies all you are not: Smart, empathic, working hard for America. You could learn from her,” another user tweeted. 

Alyssa Milano calls out Lahren for implying being a “bartender” is a bad thing. 

“Imitation is the sincerest form a flattery. Also, aren’t you part of the party who claims to be for working Americans? Why say ‘bartender,’ like it’s a bad thing?” Alyssa Milano tweeted, noting the pundit’s hypocrisy. 

The only criticism Lahren replied to is Milano’s who has 3.7 million followers on Twitter, nearly double Lahren’s. The Republican responded apologetically, backtracking from her initial implication. 

“I mean this truly and sincerely, being a former bartender is the best and most admirable thing about,” Lahren said. 

Lahren responds to backlash about her costume by accusing Beto of appropriating Mexican culture.  

After receiving criticism for her disparaging costume, Lahren went on a Twitter where she made some confusing arguments in an attempt to defend herself. 

“For all those crybabies out there triggered by my Halloween costume and others: it’s Halloween, calm down. Thought you Lefties would love a day that legitimizes going door-to-door asking for free things, anyway,” Lahren wrote.

There were no reports of people crying over Lahren’s costume. Moreover, the suggestion that Leftists and Democrats like giving away free things because a party tenet is to provide low-cost social services to the marginalized that are not free but paid for with the taxes of said marginalized, unlike billionaires who paid less in taxes than the working class in 2018, appears to be an attempt at humor from the commentator. 

Then she went onto accuse Elizabeth Warren of pretending to be Native American by using the language of racists and calling her Pocahontas.

Warren came under fire after demonstrating she has indigenous ancestry with a DNA test, despite tribal affiliation practices disavowing blood quantums. Lahren insinuated Beto O’Rourke’s nickname was a way for him, a white man that everyone knows is white, to appear Mexican.  

The lesson this Halloween is that when you leave a hateful comment or repost someone on social media to roast them you are still engaging with their content, thereby making the user more successful and profitable. 

A Restaurant In Peru Has Been Fined $62,000 For What Many Say Is Blatant Sexism

Things That Matter

A Restaurant In Peru Has Been Fined $62,000 For What Many Say Is Blatant Sexism

TripAdvisor

A famed restaurant in Lima, Peru received a $62,000 fine for what authorities felt was its sexist menu. The upscale seaside La Rosa Nautica had an unusual practice of giving one menu to men and a different one to women. La Rosa Nautica is an international tourist attraction and favorite of the country’s upper class. Featured in guidebooks and on major lists of the best restaurants, it will now be forced to change its practice. 

The owners never believed it was sexist in the first place (because double standards are the beacon of equality), but the courts disagreed. 

Two different menus. Two different genders. 

La Rosa Nautica servers would hand women patrons a gold menu that listed all of the items available to order except one detail is omitted: the price. Men are given identical blue menus with the price included. The idea being — you guessed it — men will always pay for dinner, women will not. Perhaps the owners at La Rosa Nautica don’t believe nonbinary people eat. 

During the legal proceedings, the owners defended the practice as ensuring that women “enjoy a romantic evening” without fretting over the cost of their meals — in 2019. 

The La Rosa Nautica owners denied that their menus were discriminatory and that menus without prices, “extoll the position of women, considering it a pleasure for them to enjoy a romantic evening with their partner, without taking into account the cost of the services.”

La Rosa Nautica fined $62,000 and forced to change their sexist menu practice.

Nevertheless, the National Institute for the Defense of Free Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property found the practice sexist in a 3 to 2 ruling. Now the restaurant must give people of all genders the same menu. 

“These small things may seem harmless,” Liliana Cerrón, an official with the agency that issued the fine, told the Associated Press. “But at the end of the day they are the basis of a chauvinistic construct reinforcing differences between men and women.”

On top of the $62,000 fine, the restaurant will have to offer a single menu, train staff, and display a public sign that states, “it is prohibited to discriminate against consumers on the grounds of origin, race, sex, language, religion, opinion, economic condition, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or other grounds.”

This isn’t the first case of a sexist menu. 

La Rosa Nautica isn’t the first restaurant to offer different menus to men and women or come under fire for it. In the 1980s, the L’Orangerie, a renowned restaurant in Los Angeles, was sued for sex discrimination by customers who did not like that servers gave women a white menu without prices and a green menu to men that included them. 

According to DW, some upscale German restaurants have “ladies menus” available upon request. 

“Dresden’s Moritz is one of the country’s few restaurants where female diners with a male accompaniment receive a separate women’s menu without being asked. Restaurant manager Loretta Meister told the German newspaper that although the menu never stirred any problems, ‘it’s a bit old fashioned.'” 

There’s an important reason men paying for dinner is sexist. 

How individuals choose to split their bills is nobody’s business, but when society does not give people a choice about who pays for what is when we get into trouble. For centuries men have been conditioned to be the “providers” and society was constructed to follow that belief. This is the justification for paying women less  — the implication being there should be a man at home paying for the rest. Moreover, when a man pays for a woman’s dinner there is the misguided notion that he is owed something in return. 

A 1985 study published in Psychology of Women Quarterly found that “rape was rated as more justifiable when the man paid all the dating expenses rather than splitting the costs with the woman.” A more recent study from 2010 found that men were more likely to expect sex if they paid for an expensive date. 

Nevertheless, a 2014 study found that in 77 percent of heterosexual relationships men had paid the bill on the first date. 

“As social roles start to change, people often embrace the changes that make their lives easier, but resist the changes that make their lives more difficult,” David Frederick, a professor of psychology at Chapman University, told The Huffington Post. “Who pays for dates … is one arena where women may be resisting gender changes more than men.” 

While it is not inherently sexist for a man to pay for a date, it is important to be mindful of the reasons why he might feel compelled to do so. At La Rosa Nautica patrons didn’t have a choice — and that’s not good for men or women.