Oh wait, wrong wax.
I mean,
And that's not sunscreen! That's "sunless tanner" -- nothin' like lookin' like ya belong on the Simpsons, but at least there'll be some contrast!
More to the point of this little rant, though, (being that no one seems to have caught on to what I was doing there) is notice how entirely acceptable it seems to be for a man to refuse to maintain his appearance (I guess shaving about a square foot and a half counts as all one should have to do?), while women who refuse to (painfully) yank out hair over the lip or on the legs, or refuse to wear makeup, or have short nails, or have non-'girly' hair styles get classified as "hairypitted-rightwing-cantgetlaidcozimugly-feminist" (Thankyou, Dorn, for illustrating exactly how cruel people can be. Of course, I would point out that the multiple-word adjective gets hyphenated, and not the noun they modify, and that feminism is usually a left-winged philosophy [3 waves and dozens of philosophies per wave, though; there're counterexamples]).
It is in the issue of the presentation of the body that you'll find the sexism originally inquired about by this thread and the genuinely differing standards with negative consequences to a party, which is something that the discussion of the law in the original post will draw ungodly amounts of attention to. It is something that is much more recognizable, carries a stronger "knee-jerk" response, can easily draw attention from another discussion, and makes a discussion like "Is it bad to tell people to cover up parts they usually cover up anyway?" seem pretty moot, imho. Essentially what I say is that if you want to fight for equality, NickD, either find hairy legs sexy or put an equal amount of effort into your own presentation. You'll do much more good like that.
