LAST MONTH, feminist activists attached woolen hair to the armpits of female statues in London, as shown in this photo from UK Feminista. These daring activists were taking an important stand, don’t you know? Their point was that women have been forced for many years to remove their body hair. According to Chloe Marshall, of UK Feminista:
A few tentative steps away from the adorned statues, and the campaigners are soon reaping the rewards of their efforts. Members of the public stroll by and almost always stop to take a second look, and some take leaflets whilst others discuss hair removal. Either way, the message is being communicated loud and clear, and attracts a sizeable crowd at the London Pride sculpture on the South Bank.
Hair removal is one more sad and sorry tale of woe.
You see, for centuries, men have held women down and forced them to shave their armpits. The screams of women who did not want their unsightly body hair removed echoes through history, like the cries of ancient slaves. Some men have dragged women in chains to dark cellars, where big, hulking brutes cut off their body hair with sharp machetes. Even today, all those pink razors in drugstores are merely implements of male torture. Men have secretly, somehow, by mysterious and sinister mental conditioning, the processes of which we are surely soon to discover, convinced women that they are not human beings as long as they have body hair. They have dehumanized women in this way, and dehumanization is no small matter.
Thank goodness for these guerrilla tactics. The ever-bright, ever-brave, ever-serious concerns of feminists continue to elevate thought and create beauty throughout the Western world, where more than half the population remains in invisible chains.
—- Comments —-
Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:
On the courageous defenders of female body hair –
This is an old story. When I was in graduate school in the 1980s, the devoted leftwing females were always immediately identifiable in warm weather… by their hairy legs and their matted armpits. And let’s not forget their enormous clumsy shoes. And their perpetual scowls. (Think Janet Napolitano.) Welcome to the radiant future!
I must say that among the coeds in my classrooms I see absolutely no sign of any of this. Most are self-consciously pretty in the stereotypical college-girl way. It’s a slightly insipid stereotype, but it’s better than any number of imaginable alternatives.
I could have almost understood if they’d put hair on the statue’s legs instead. More than once I’ve wished I’d gotten downy soft body hair instead of the dark, rapidly growing stuff I have today. Underarm hair, on the other hand, needs to go. It’s unsightly and smelly and just annoying. It also takes about 5 seconds to painlessly remove.
I have to wonder what these feminists say about Lysistrata. It sounds like a feminist dream – women using their sexual power to keep men from fighting a “senseless” war. However, I distinctly remember the leader reminding all the other women to groom themselves and “pluck their triangles” for maximum attractiveness. As for underarm shaving, I believe it came into prominence sometime during the 20′s when the “curve of a woman’s arm” became more prominently displayed. It was also a time of unprecedented sexual liberation and debauchery. For which I deduce that periods of greater sexual “liberation” and competition lead to women working harder at being attractive to men. How…..surprising?
Ben J. writes:
That picture says everything. Before I enlarged it and examined it more closely, I could not tell whether the vandals were male or female. While I’m still not 100 percent sure, I now suspect the latter. I use the word female on purpose. Every lady I know has better things to do with her life than pasting wool on statuary, and bothering strangers about perceptions of armpit hair.
Beardless John writes:
So shaving armpits is a form of oppression? Well, we males face social pressure to shave our faces. Gosh, I never knew I was oppressed. Thanks to the feminists now I do.
Lawrence Auster writes:
Since these women regard shaving one’s armpits as an unnatural thing to do to one’s body, I wonder if they feel the same about permanently disfiguring one’s body with tattoos?
Oh, boy. Were you born yesterday?
Tattoos are a symbol of liberation. They were once the exclusive privilege of men.
Mr. Auster writes:
Right, that’s the answer. That’s why the same women who protest the removal of underarm hair as an unnatural thing to do to the body would not oppose horrible tattoos as an unnatural thing to do to the body. Because it’s not unnaturalness that is the issue. It’s freedom that is the issue. The removal of female underarm hair is (supposedly) an imposition, by men, on women’s freedom, while tattoos are an expression of freedom.
Phew! You’ve come to your senses. : – )
The completely hairless female is a contemporary perversion given to our culture by pornography. When I taught briefly at a gymnasium in Eastern Europe, the staunchest of grandmas still frowned on leg-shaving, as the custom had been introduced to the country by the prostitutes of the Nazis.
I don’t think body hair is necessarily ugly. When people are unaccustomed to it, however, it does seem ugly.
The convention of removing body hair may be, as a commenter already mentioned, a symptom of a heavily sexualized or image-conscious culture.
It seems to me as a young religious girl that the complete removal of body hair has accompained sexual liberation and the expansion of pornography. A lot of liberal young men who love the sexual revolution prefer their female partners to be completely bald in the genital area. At least, that has been my impression from what they have said.
Don’t they have better things to think about?