Amazon ad with Girl with mustache

[Anonymous]

Hahaha I knew DCUM would hate and be triggered by this ad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I HATE IT.




…, said many when women had the audacity to wear trousers in the 1920s.

“The main reason why parents refused to buy their daughters a pair of trousers or restricted their use was that trousers were perceived as indecent. One of the respondents described how she had asked her mother whether “we women” should not also wear trousers: “The answer was clear, they don’t belong to women, and why should we imitate men?” (SKS KRA Housut 88.2006, respondent born in 1929). Reactions to women’s trousers were mostly negative; they were seen as indecent, immoral, disgusting and too mannish for women.”

https://ee.openlibhums.org/article/id/1788/

This is not a good analogy, because anyone can choose (or not) to wear trousers. Meanwhile, few women can grow a mustache without hormone treatment. So it will always seem "mannish" to grow a mustache, and facial hair will always be associated with men.

I wish. Whole ethnicities you probably aren't familiar with will see this add as nothing but acceptance of excess facial hair growth.

Tell me you are white without telling me you're white.

Allow me to introduce you to the Greeks and the Italians

Let me introduce you to those who deal with hormone imbalances, including imbalances related to cystic ovaries or diabetes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It freaked me out. What was that about? Was it something with trans?

I hadn't seen it until I saw this thread. I'm a trans woman and after watching it, it seems pretty obvious to me that the person in the video is a nonbinary AFAB person, most likely on testosterone. It's clearly queer coded and the person is clearly supposed to be gender nonconforming and almost certainly nonbinary. They could have made it more obvious with something like a trans flag but that's probably too on the nose for cis viewers. I'd wager the only reason that there wasn't a blahaj in the video is because it's an Ikea product. If you're not familiar, it's a large and inexpensive stuffed shark from Ikea that happens to have the same colors as the trans flag and has become a thing in trans culture.

If they were on testosterone because they’re trans, they wouldn’t be upset about the lip hair and trying to remove it…

Maybe you're right. I might be reading too much into the bedroom. I'm not nonbinary but I know many that are and they don't all want the same things in their transition but one cannot dictate what hormones will do to your body. For example, an AFAB NB might not want body hair but would want a mustache. Or they may not want a mustache either. Some AMAB NB's want body feminization without breast growth. You're probably right though and I'm reading too much into it.

Am I the only one who can't follow most of what the PP is writing? Maybe lay off all of the acronyms for a second.

They’re saying Assigned Male at Birth, Assigned Female at Birth, and Non-Binary. It’s similar to man, woman, neither/both.

I can't roll my eyes hard enough at this. Sex (male/female) is biology, and nobody is assigning it to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It freaked me out. What was that about? Was it something with trans?

No. It was about being comfortable in your own skin. And how women shouldn't have to cave to the pressures of society to appear/look a certain way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I HATE IT.




…, said many when women had the audacity to wear trousers in the 1920s.

“The main reason why parents refused to buy their daughters a pair of trousers or restricted their use was that trousers were perceived as indecent. One of the respondents described how she had asked her mother whether “we women” should not also wear trousers: “The answer was clear, they don’t belong to women, and why should we imitate men?” (SKS KRA Housut 88.2006, respondent born in 1929). Reactions to women’s trousers were mostly negative; they were seen as indecent, immoral, disgusting and too mannish for women.”

https://ee.openlibhums.org/article/id/1788/

This is not a good analogy, because anyone can choose (or not) to wear trousers. Meanwhile, few women can grow a mustache without hormone treatment. So it will always seem "mannish" to grow a mustache, and facial hair will always be associated with men.

I wish. Whole ethnicities you probably aren't familiar with will see this add as nothing but acceptance of excess facial hair growth.

Tell me you are white without telling me you're white.

THis is such a stupid and trite phrase that needs to die. So unoriginal and everywhere.

Tell me you're an unimaginative follower....whatever way you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It freaked me out. What was that about? Was it something with trans?

I hadn't seen it until I saw this thread. I'm a trans woman and after watching it, it seems pretty obvious to me that the person in the video is a nonbinary AFAB person, most likely on testosterone. It's clearly queer coded and the person is clearly supposed to be gender nonconforming and almost certainly nonbinary. They could have made it more obvious with something like a trans flag but that's probably too on the nose for cis viewers. I'd wager the only reason that there wasn't a blahaj in the video is because it's an Ikea product. If you're not familiar, it's a large and inexpensive stuffed shark from Ikea that happens to have the same colors as the trans flag and has become a thing in trans culture.

If they were on testosterone because they’re trans, they wouldn’t be upset about the lip hair and trying to remove it…

Maybe you're right. I might be reading too much into the bedroom. I'm not nonbinary but I know many that are and they don't all want the same things in their transition but one cannot dictate what hormones will do to your body. For example, an AFAB NB might not want body hair but would want a mustache. Or they may not want a mustache either. Some AMAB NB's want body feminization without breast growth. You're probably right though and I'm reading too much into it.

I think it’s just supposed to be a girl who’s unhappy about her lip hair, who decides to embrace herself as she is. There may be nods to other stuff in her room, maybe she is NB, maybe she is gay, but I don’t think she is supposed to be trans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I HATE IT.




…, said many when women had the audacity to wear trousers in the 1920s.

“The main reason why parents refused to buy their daughters a pair of trousers or restricted their use was that trousers were perceived as indecent. One of the respondents described how she had asked her mother whether “we women” should not also wear trousers: “The answer was clear, they don’t belong to women, and why should we imitate men?” (SKS KRA Housut 88.2006, respondent born in 1929). Reactions to women’s trousers were mostly negative; they were seen as indecent, immoral, disgusting and too mannish for women.”

https://ee.openlibhums.org/article/id/1788/

This is not a good analogy, because anyone can choose (or not) to wear trousers. Meanwhile, few women can grow a mustache without hormone treatment. So it will always seem "mannish" to grow a mustache, and facial hair will always be associated with men.

I wish. Whole ethnicities you probably aren't familiar with will see this add as nothing but acceptance of excess facial hair growth.

Tell me you are white without telling me you're white.

THis is such a stupid and trite phrase that needs to die. So unoriginal and everywhere.

Tell me you're an unimaginative follower....whatever way you want.

So you do or don’t know young women with mustaches?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I HATE IT.




…, said many when women had the audacity to wear trousers in the 1920s.

“The main reason why parents refused to buy their daughters a pair of trousers or restricted their use was that trousers were perceived as indecent. One of the respondents described how she had asked her mother whether “we women” should not also wear trousers: “The answer was clear, they don’t belong to women, and why should we imitate men?” (SKS KRA Housut 88.2006, respondent born in 1929). Reactions to women’s trousers were mostly negative; they were seen as indecent, immoral, disgusting and too mannish for women.”

https://ee.openlibhums.org/article/id/1788/

This is not a good analogy, because anyone can choose (or not) to wear trousers. Meanwhile, few women can grow a mustache without hormone treatment. So it will always seem "mannish" to grow a mustache, and facial hair will always be associated with men.

I wish. Whole ethnicities you probably aren't familiar with will see this add as nothing but acceptance of excess facial hair growth.

Tell me you are white without telling me you're white.

Allow me to introduce you to the Greeks and the Italians

Let me introduce you to those who deal with hormone imbalances, including imbalances related to cystic ovaries or diabetes.

Let me introduce you to light-hearted humor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a woman who underwent electrolysis on my mustache years ago because I was self-conscious about it, I gotta say I like the ad. I don’t see it as having anything to do with being trans so much as a girl who decides not to conform to beauty standards. Fine with me!

Agree. I'm a CIS woman, and I shave my mustache with a tinkle razor (also available on Amazon ), and everytime that commercial comes on I watch because I like the message it's sending (minus the part about finding happiness through Amazon).

Another LOVE THIS AD from me - CIS woman who intermittently deals with my facial hair because I don’t like it (on me) but I’m lazy and have sensitive skin.

The point is that she doesn’t care that a bunch of middle-aged women of Northern European/Anglo Saxon descent find her mustache ugly. She’s comfortable with it, and that’s what matters.

See also, how course curly/coily natural hair was/is considered unprofessional and sloppy looking because of the similar Northern European/Anglo Saxon standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It freaked me out. What was that about? Was it something with trans?

I hadn't seen it until I saw this thread. I'm a trans woman and after watching it, it seems pretty obvious to me that the person in the video is a nonbinary AFAB person, most likely on testosterone. It's clearly queer coded and the person is clearly supposed to be gender nonconforming and almost certainly nonbinary. They could have made it more obvious with something like a trans flag but that's probably too on the nose for cis viewers. I'd wager the only reason that there wasn't a blahaj in the video is because it's an Ikea product. If you're not familiar, it's a large and inexpensive stuffed shark from Ikea that happens to have the same colors as the trans flag and has become a thing in trans culture.

If they were on testosterone because they’re trans, they wouldn’t be upset about the lip hair and trying to remove it…

Maybe you're right. I might be reading too much into the bedroom. I'm not nonbinary but I know many that are and they don't all want the same things in their transition but one cannot dictate what hormones will do to your body. For example, an AFAB NB might not want body hair but would want a mustache. Or they may not want a mustache either. Some AMAB NB's want body feminization without breast growth. You're probably right though and I'm reading too much into it.

Am I the only one who can't follow most of what the PP is writing? Maybe lay off all of the acronyms for a second.

They’re saying Assigned Male at Birth, Assigned Female at Birth, and Non-Binary. It’s similar to man, woman, neither/both.

I can't roll my eyes hard enough at this. Sex (male/female) is biology, and nobody is assigning it to you.

Different PP.. I admit I'm not familiar with a lot of terms, I thought it was Anatomically Male At Birth and Amatomically Female At Birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I HATE IT.




…, said many when women had the audacity to wear trousers in the 1920s.

“The main reason why parents refused to buy their daughters a pair of trousers or restricted their use was that trousers were perceived as indecent. One of the respondents described how she had asked her mother whether “we women” should not also wear trousers: “The answer was clear, they don’t belong to women, and why should we imitate men?” (SKS KRA Housut 88.2006, respondent born in 1929). Reactions to women’s trousers were mostly negative; they were seen as indecent, immoral, disgusting and too mannish for women.”

https://ee.openlibhums.org/article/id/1788/

This is not a good analogy, because anyone can choose (or not) to wear trousers. Meanwhile, few women can grow a mustache without hormone treatment. So it will always seem "mannish" to grow a mustache, and facial hair will always be associated with men.

I wish. Whole ethnicities you probably aren't familiar with will see this add as nothing but acceptance of excess facial hair growth.

Tell me you are white without telling me you're white.

THis is such a stupid and trite phrase that needs to die. So unoriginal and everywhere.

Tell me you're an unimaginative follower....whatever way you want.

I'm that PP. I'm a frequent traveler and I use language to communicate effectively with the locals. When in Rome...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I HATE IT.




…, said many when women had the audacity to wear trousers in the 1920s.

“The main reason why parents refused to buy their daughters a pair of trousers or restricted their use was that trousers were perceived as indecent. One of the respondents described how she had asked her mother whether “we women” should not also wear trousers: “The answer was clear, they don’t belong to women, and why should we imitate men?” (SKS KRA Housut 88.2006, respondent born in 1929). Reactions to women’s trousers were mostly negative; they were seen as indecent, immoral, disgusting and too mannish for women.”

https://ee.openlibhums.org/article/id/1788/

This is not a good analogy, because anyone can choose (or not) to wear trousers. Meanwhile, few women can grow a mustache without hormone treatment. So it will always seem "mannish" to grow a mustache, and facial hair will always be associated with men.

I wish. Whole ethnicities you probably aren't familiar with will see this add as nothing but acceptance of excess facial hair growth.

Tell me you are white without telling me you're white.

Allow me to introduce you to the Greeks and the Italians

Let me introduce you to those who deal with hormone imbalances, including imbalances related to cystic ovaries or diabetes.

Let me introduce you to light-hearted humor.

Oh. I wasn't upset. I was adding to those who deal with the very real body hair issue in response to the original statement that few women have facial hair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazon is now using a shortened version of that commercial in which the facial hair is not there and it appears to be just about receiving cool clothes from Amazon and therefore becoming a cool cat. I think they are afraid of being Bud Lighted.

If only.

I just saw the ad on NBC.

They are still showing the original version but there is also a shortened version without any reference to lip hair.

[Anonymous]

I like that the ad is showing a young person finding inspiration in uniqueness rather than conformity. I mean, yeah, it's an ad and not a public service announcement, but still.

My 7 yo DD is already saying things like "I hate the hair on my legs,", refusing to wear shorts, trying to hide her new buck teeth when she smiles. Where do you think she gets this stuff? It's not from me. I don't understand why adults can't refrain from commenting on appearance. It's fine if you prefer your appearance to conform to feminine beauty standards, but kids pick up on these things so quickly and repeat them and perpetuate the cycle. I don't see the harm in a TV ad showing someone embracing their appearance and feeling good about it. If your kids are like "ew gross" and you are like "yeah, right?" you are part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It freaked me out. What was that about? Was it something with trans?

I hadn't seen it until I saw this thread. I'm a trans woman and after watching it, it seems pretty obvious to me that the person in the video is a nonbinary AFAB person, most likely on testosterone. It's clearly queer coded and the person is clearly supposed to be gender nonconforming and almost certainly nonbinary. They could have made it more obvious with something like a trans flag but that's probably too on the nose for cis viewers. I'd wager the only reason that there wasn't a blahaj in the video is because it's an Ikea product. If you're not familiar, it's a large and inexpensive stuffed shark from Ikea that happens to have the same colors as the trans flag and has become a thing in trans culture.

I don’t know. I thought it was about a girl accepting herself as she is with a mustache rather than conform to societal standards, as many women have a mustache if they don’t wax it off. I don’t think everyone nonconforming to societal standards needs to be trans or non-binary. Yes, I’m cis, but also that’s my take on it and the audience is everyone. Maybe it’s vague so we can all take from it as we see fit, and in that case it’s well done. We can all see ourselves in that girl.

I don’t like it mostly because I think, to me, it’s like she wants desperately to find acceptance through buying things on Amazon. It’s just a weird message.

+1

I assumed it was about a woman unlearning toxic beauty standards. Why does everything like this have to mean "queer coded"? This is like how they decided Nymphadora Tonks had to be nonbinary because being a tomboy or an unconventional woman was bigoted.

Because, as always, women are being erased and, as usual, white men are behind it. They are completely manipulating the trans community as a means for eroding the rights and power women have worked hard to secure.