Many Such Takes: Woman Tax, Slur-Slinging Tradwife, and More
Jumping into the weekly discourse, best and worst takes, and more.
Welcome to the first edition of Many Such Takes! I stay up to date with the latest and most chaotic Twitter discourse so you don’t have to. If you see yourself featured here and you don’t like it, simply send me a Substack message and I will happily remove, no matter who you are or what you said. This week…
The Woman Tax
This week, Twitter has been all about the Woman Tax debate, which probably came from a Reddit post that was re-posted to Twitter (Important to note here is that @ellegist is joking here):
Twitter users promptly debated whether the Woman Tax is real (or necessary.)
Things really heated up when a Twitter user posted a photo of themselves as proof that the Woman Tax is unnecessary:
I think the above reaction to her post is the most accurate—she looks nice (even if she didn’t, I’m not into shaming people’s appearances) but she doesn’t look like a certified Baddie/polished femme fatale, which is clearly what the Woman Tax accomplishes. Moreover, several people thought it was odd to replace going to a salon with “moving more,” given that nobody comes out of a hair salon skinnier, unless they happen to be offering bonus Ozempic shots with their balayage specials (Is this what Trump is doing??)
People were quick to point out the bizarre tradeoff she was referencing:
But I guess the question is: is the Woman Tax necessary to attract men, or is it for something else? Attracting men, as MiriVinni pointed out, doesn’t require professional mani-pedis, designer clothes, or anything else expensive, outside of simply getting into shape (obviously, there are plenty of men who don’t care about fitness, or who prefer plus-size woman, but I assume we’re talking about the strategy of casting the widest possible net.) Also, most men prefer long hair, so if you’re able to just get an occasional trim, that will go further than getting full highlights and a trendy layered cut. But on the other hand, maybe these things do attract men in a way that men can’t articulate—they don’t notice the specifics of eyelash extensions, fillers, Botox, hair dye, and laser hair removal, but all of those things combined may help a woman go from a 6 to an 8 (speaking crudely, here, don’t hate me) which could make a big difference to potential mates. And yes, men’s “ideal” woman might be a 10/10 who looks that way without any upkeep or maintenance, but that’s about as realistic as Glen Powell in a firefighter uniform keeping track of every interpersonal conflict you’ve ever had and repeatedly asking you to tell stories about them.
A Twitter friend of mine asked someone from the Real World and got this conversation:
A male friend of mine in his early 30s said, “I think some fields need women to look their best for like some public or client facing role in which case it is a tax” and a female friend of mine around the same age agrees: “I’m a corporate lawyer, if my hair looks like shit my clients will notice and I frankly won’t like the way it looks as much.”
But of course, it’s not Twitter without the inevitable Take of All Takes: how can you pay for a haircut when people are suffering (see: Great Charcuterie Debate of…2021? 2022? I forget.)
Honestly, I’m undecided on the Woman Tax discourse! Most of the money I spend on my appearance is for clothes, and that’s primarily for me, since my husband has made it clear he’d be happy with me wearing minimal makeup and the same ratty pair of gray leggings every day. But also, we’re married. If I were single, perhaps I’d need to step it up a bit. And maybe it’s not just about men—what about wanting to signal status in a career, or among other women, who are far more likely to notice these things than men? What do you all think?!
The Slur-Slinging Tradwife
A “tradwife” (which in this case really means “woman wearing an apron,” because this woman very much had a full-time day job) recently posted a video in which she drops an N-bomb, only to double down after facing backlash. She also lost her job, but continued posting through it. For a moment, you might think this is your typical 2020’s social media story: person says something offensive, people get mad, person aims to ride the outrage onto an interview with Tucker Carlson.
However, nothing could have prepared me for the Twitter twist—before you assume the Right has no interest in Cancel Culture, consider for a moment that you can’t merely be racist and expect to be let into the Racist Club. For one, can we verify you aren’t Jewish, married to a Black man or trans? What about ALL OF THE ABOVE?!?!?!
So there you have it—not so easy to secure a right-wing grifter influencer role anymore! At least not until you post a full genetic panel for yourself and everyone in your family.
Funniest Tweets of the Week
The following tweets are just tweets I found hilarious that you should all see:
Writer and satirist Alex Furlin’s argument with someone who insists there are many periods of history they’d prefer to live in to the present, but who refuses to provide one example.
Comedian Dan White’s Father’s Day text:
Some solid Trump stuff:
Another Father’s Day text gem:
And, last, dreaming big (but realistically):
Nothing sadder than a "What do you all think?", followed by zero comments. I guess I can chip in, if no one else is interested.
There are plenty of layers to the woman tax, but there's good evidence that it isn't (exclusively) guy-related. The original post was about a boyfriend/girlfriend, after all. Seems like the tax should decrease, the moment her boyfriend mentions that he prefers the extra dough to the prettier hairdo.
Which means that this is probably more about women viewing themselves as attractive, and the money investment needed to keep that consistent. So, a self-esteem tax? Some ladies have a low tax, some have a high one. Some should probably have a lower tax than they do, if they're living paycheck to paycheck. I can't be too harsh though. It's nice to feel expensive!
Might be worth pointing out that the idea of a self-esteem tax isn't exclusively female. Most guys just tend to blow their self-esteem money on expensive items, not month to month appearance upkeep. 'Judge a man's worth by his possessions. A woman's, by her beauty.' Both statements are pretty silly when you dig down to the core, but I don't know... Everyone needs some path towards value. Don't overdo it, and a little self-esteem tax seems fine, honestly.
The problem with 'woman tax' discourse is that it conflates being incentivized to do something with being mandated to do something. There might be some benefits to spending a lot of money on your appearance. That doesn't mean you have to take the incentive if it doesn't align with your values.
I think three things are being conflated here:
1. Pressure on women in corporate environments to be very very polished (make-up, expensive hair, manicures etc).
This is real and its a subtle form of sex-based discrimination. Particularly for women of colour who may be under a lot of pressure to not wear their hair naturally or who are under even greater burdens regarding pressure on their appearance. I'm in the legal field but frankly, I wouldn't want to work for a firm that would require me to show up in full glam every day just to do non-client facing work.
2. The cost of being a "baddie"/being extremely conventionally "hot".
As far as I'm concerned, being an instagram baddie is a subculture that you can freely opt out of. I'm sure it's very expensive to look like that, which is why most women don't.
3. The need to massively invest in beauty to get a boyfriend.
This is just not reality. I think my boyfriend would find it strange if I started spending all my disposable income on looksmaxxing. He likes me already! And any man who expected that look just wouldn't be a good fit. I don't need to be appeal to everyone in the world.