I know this isn't a recent thing, but this business of (almost) ALL GOP women, having long flowing (usually) blond locks has been getting to me.

I myself used to have long blond hair (in fact, I haven't yet taken the slightly traumatic step of cutting it short - with an adapted style. Besides which, it's been a good while since it was blond). It's handy to keep it long so I can put it up and avoid expensive styling, but I plan to take the leap eventually.

Frankly, I really don't think it's becoming for women past "a certain age" to wear their hair below their shoulders least of all below the bosom. I thought cutting it was a rite of passage. Besides, the hair of most of us has thinned and even if we can afford good coloring jobs to keep it a bright color - well, can you picture Rapunzel > 40? 50? That is, however much she and age cohorts may have (with MUCH effort) retained their lithe figures and firmish facial contours. Queens maybe, but not princesses anymore! Cats, not kittens.

Although many - if not most - men enjoy the sight (and feel) of long hair in young women, I think most prefer seeing their partners age gracefully looking attractive and stylish, in an age-appropriate way. (NOT to say, unbeautiful - but not trying to prolong the pretense of early youth. IMO this has the opposite effect.

That (again IMO) is even true of wealthy celebrities and socialites who can afford to indulge their wish for quality plastic surgery to keep their sagging skin, complete with spots, at bay. Also true of never-menopausal sex symbols (like Cher, Madonna, Demi Moore) . Why, when they color their hair, they go to the mind-boggling coloring effort of faking DARK roots instead of their natural grey roots! Imagine what that must cost. LOL (Remember when it was considered unthinkable to let roots show at all? Likewise, bra-straps until Madonna popularized the OUTER bra?).

Anyhow, I remark with distaste and (to a degree) embarrassment for my sex, that long flowing locks - usually luminously blond, are apparently part of the uniform of Trump women - not all of whom can afford the cosmetic surgery to insure their bodies match the hair (All ages and income brackets. It's the female equivalent of MAGA hats. ) I'm now noticing this especially at the RNC. I think it's extremely unappealing and kind of pathetic. This is true even of women he's appointed to positions of power. It's as if they're all trying to please Trump men, especially of course, Number #1 - even though he can afford the old-fashioned approach of just upgrading when the old models, however refurbished, approach expiration date. (Menopause?). I guess they must have started to grow their hair in 2016.

This is NOT true of liberal women. (And yet it's a standing joke on the Right that liberal women are "uglier" than their own!) What do you think? Is it appealing for mature women to sport shiny hair past their boobs? Men? Women? [/major vent, social commentary]

Kayleigh McEnany seems to be the ultimate Stepford Trumpwoman. Perky, bubbly, blonde, with a perfect wave in the long tresses. Lies on his behalf. Storms off from the podium feigning indignation of anyone questions Dear Leader.

She is the hair all Trumpwomen aspire to. She even puts Melania and Kellyanne to shame.

The thing that I think is weird is that style Guilfoyle typifies but a lot of them have where most of their hair is pulled forward over their shoulders. I picture the backs of their heads as being parted in the center with all the hair pushed over their shoulders. This can't look good at all, so it's a very Fox News style that only has to look good for the camera.

Also, I'm pretty sure that there are extensions and other faux hair involved in at least some of those very, very thick hairdos.

So what’s with the raccoon eye makeup?

Are all of the competent makeup artists Democrats?

quote:

Originally posted by Mary Anna:
The thing that I think is weird is that style Guilfoyle typifies...

Also, I'm pretty sure that there are extensions and other faux hair involved in at least some of those very, very thick hairdos.

Oh, sure (re hair add-ons).

But what do you think of "the Look" on ALL his female supporters - 50+ YO women all sporting fairy tale princess locks, spilling over their shoulders, often below boobs?

(And NOT thick like the ones at the top. Referring to the hoi polloi ones at rallies and in audience tonight. Thin except for slight increase in thickness because of bleaching. UGH!)

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
So what’s with the raccoon eye makeup?

Are all of the competent makeup artists Democrats?

Yes, it's pretty tasteless.

I think they're all trying to fit a Donald Trump ideal rooted in his youth. (He probably drops hints to his female represntatives, and word gets around).

Thinking of the sexy glamour of 60's/70s movie stars who DID doll up like that - long, luxurious (bleached) blond hair and the overdone make-up. (Haven't seen that much eyeshadow for quite a while)

Thinking of Diana Dors, Jayne Mansfield...Pretty tasteless by today's ordinary beauty standards (check out make-up ads in women's magazines if you happen upon any.)

It's particularly jarring because the Jayne Mansfield look wasn't supposed to be for the office. I realize that cultural norms when it comes to clothing are socially constructed, and I also realize that I come from an era when women who wanted to be taken seriously as professionals did not emulate hypersexualized styles in hair and clothing, but I still feel that there is a difference between clothes, makeup, and hair for an evening out and clothes, makeup, and hair for the office. (Or for the convention stage.)

I flew in the face of that a bit when I was younger, in that I always wore makeup and my work suits had more feminine cuts and colors than the ones that really did just look like a smaller-sized man's suit, but I was careful not to show skin or wear clothes that would be read as sexy. I thought that sending that kind of signal would cause trouble, and I don't think I was wrong.

In an ideal world, this would not matter. Everybody could wear whatever they liked. However, if we lived in an ideal world, we would not have an admitted grabber-of-women in the most powerful position in the world. In a world where people like Trump and (until recently) Roger Ailes are running things, dressing like a female FOX news personality makes it look like you're doing whatever it takes to get the attention of the guy at the top. I never wanted to send that signal.

They probably feel quite powerful dressed that way, and I'm probably showing my age and my prejudices, but it looks like self-abasement to me.

Eau em gee! I don't watch TV and get most of my news by reading, so I had not seen most of these women. Tomi Lauren, Lara Trump (clearly people saving on letters in their names), the whole bunch of them. The. Exact. Same. Hair. Except junior's sidepiece... same hair, different color.

It must be what Dear Leader likes.

Stepfords. All of them. Stepford women.

This is really pretty complicated, because I am not fond of the Barbie Doll aesthetic.... But at the same time, I'm not in agreement with the idea that women shouldn't look sexy past a certain age... Or the idea that women past a certain age shouldn't have long hair. So there's a lot going on here..

I think message is clear though: in Trump's administration, if you're female, you're not valuable unless you have long, sexy hair (preferably blond), a generous bosom, and clothes that make that highly visible.

So, to me, the problem is not the age of any of the women... The problem is the apparent requirement of fitting into a very narrow view of what's sexually attractive, and needing to embody that attractiveness even in (especially in?) your professional role.

Although, I should note that Trump's administration isn't the only place you see that... Look at Academy Awards or other award shows. Women with every curve and a lot of skin on display, loads of make-up, hair, impossible-to-walk-in shoes... while men are often in suits in which the only skin you see is from the neck up, and many men must less "dress up" or "presented" than the women.

quote:

Originally posted by ShiroKuro:
I'm not in agreement with the idea that women shouldn't look sexy past a certain age... Or the idea that women past a certain age shouldn't have long hair. ...

Not at all saying that.

quote:

in Trump's administration, if you're female, you're not valuable unless you have long, sexy hair (preferably blond), a generous bosom, and clothes that make that highly visible.[/QUOTE

And not just in the administration!
It's ALL - or a significant percent of - the women in the whole Trump support group.

I think they look - well, pathetic. And as PJ calls it Stepford Wives, but in a particularly unflattering way.

Yes, I appreciate your commentary (and Mary Anna's) on women's dress expectations whether at work or evening wear.
That's all a different topic - one I havent thought of much because I've never had a job where I had to look "professional" and/or compete with men to be taken seriously.

To put it simply, not counting the special categories of women in his administration (I'm broadly including FOX NEWS) and that of women in his family , I think this aged princess look is ridiculous. (Think Miss Havisham)

And it's not a matter of reaching a certain age, but of LOOKING it! I don't think they look sexy; I think they look awful. (Even Ivanka has cut her super long hair to shoulder length. Note, long hair doesn't count if worn up.)

And re those special categories mentioned, they pull off the look to the degree they do, by a LOT of (mostly quite expert) plastic surgery. You might be interested in perusing a "before" picture of the young Ivanka. A very sweet slightly bewildered-looking, typical awkward adolescent (with an underbite and pretty flat chest) And no, it's not age that made the difference. She had everything redone - and well!

To put my overall thoughts about why the Trump-look on women doesn't work, it's that they don't look sexy, but poorly presented.

In general, trying to look younger makes one look older.

Here.

I find it interesting that people with such obvious white supremacist leanings find it necessary to tan or paint themselves to an unnatural-for-them orangey-tan.

Except Jared. Jared seems to be going for the complexion of the undead.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary Anna:
I find it interesting that people with such obvious white supremacist leanings find it necessary to tan or paint themselves to an unnatural-for-them orangey-tan.

Except Jared. Jared seems to be going for the complexion of the undead.

Hasn't this been true for at least the last fifty years?

And that despite the awareness of how susceptible this makes them to skin cancer!

about Jared!