Feminists expressed outrage on Wednesday after a conservative outlet reported on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spending $300 on a haircut
The Washington Times published an exclusive revealing the New York Democrat spent $80 for a cut and $180 on lowlights at the Last Tangle Salon. The Times assumed a 20 percent tip to get the $300 haircut number.
The ostensible takeaway was that Ocasio-Cortez, a self-declared socialist, wasn’t living out her woman of the people ideals.
The freshman congresswoman could have received the same service for around $100 at the government-subsidized Capitol Hill barbershop, according to The Times.
“AOC is the Eva Peron of American politics. She preaches socialism while living the life of the privileged,” Richard Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, was quoted as saying in the Times’ piece.
“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,” Manning added.
“This would obvs never be a story about a man”
Many commentators criticized The Times’ piece, characterizing it as a lightweight hit job lacking in newsworthiness.
Does anyone actually realize how bonkers it is to be finger wagging at AOC for not getting a $20 haircut (also fuck you, no one at Supercuts is touching my hair) while actual BILLIONAIRES paid a lower tax rate than working class people last year? THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED https://t.co/f4QryDVTSm
— Laura Hudson (@laura_hudson) October 10, 2019
Others suggested the price tag for Ocasio-Cortez’s cut wasn’t all that exorbitant for affluent, high cost-of-living Washington, DC.
Then there were the commenters who viewed the burgeoning controversy from the lens of gender theory.
Jessica Valenti, a self-described “feminist author” and Medium columnist, suggested a double standard was in play.
“this would obvs never be a story about a man,” Valenti tweeted, before downplaying the expensiveness of the haircut.
“if her hair was raggedy, that would be the lead story instead,” Valenti said.
Sorry you don’t get to create beauty standards that require women to spends hundreds or thousands a year to be considered presentable and then hate us for it
— Jessica Valenti (@JessicaValenti) October 10, 2019
“Sorry you don’t get to create beauty standards that require women to spends hundreds or thousands a year to be considered presentable and then hate us for it,” she sad in a followup tweet.
By far the least surprising thing about this thread is how many men have no idea what women are charged for their hair.
— Anita Yandle (@AnitaYandle) October 10, 2019
Valenti’s initial tweet received nearly 21,000 likes and more than 2,000 retweets. And several commenters showed up in replies to back Valenti’s feminist take on the subject.
And her cut still would have cost $200 apparently. She couldn’t avoid paying 10x what Sessions did. Also, he looked terrible.
— Kevin Donato (@WhatMyWifeYells) October 10, 2019
Some Twitter users weighed in to gently call Valenti’s attention to instances when male politicians’ hair had drawn similar scrutiny:
Agree this story is much ado about nothing (except cuts are too $$!), but remember Bill Clinton’s hair affair? “The Post spoke of the haircut more than 50 times, nine times in front-page stories.” https://t.co/UKA4cE9wpl
— Kate Woodsome (@kwoodsome) October 10, 2019