Fark Headline: 1/3 of women would rather go hungry than miss out on a stylish haircut

[Nightshade]

Linky (http://www.ok.co.uk/worldinaction/view/10577/Women-choose-the-chop-over-chomp/)

But, but, I thought long hair made you OLD! WHy would you give up anything for long hair? :twisted:


Women would rather live on rations than go without...

1. Regular haircuts 30%

2. Good quality make-up 25%

3. Taxis home after dark 24%

4. Takeaways 22%

5. Favourite perfume 19%

6. Luxury chocolates / ice cream 15%

7. Good quality wine 9%

8. Flowers 9%

9. Touche Eclat 7%

10. Professional waxing 5%

I feel the need to announce that the women in this study make the rest of us look bad. Self-trim, get BPAL, buy an RRRRRRRR machine and quityerbitchin.

[Bunnyhare]

This is really wierd..I am never going to get over people being amazingly...what? stupid ,shallow...how can you rather have these things over your sustenance and well being?!

[Chromis]

I somehow doubt many of these women have ever actually been hungry :twocents:

[Nightshade]

Gah, just noticed the title got cut off! it should finish, "... than miss out on a stylish haircut."

[SheWolf]

I somehow doubt many of these women have ever actually been hungry :twocents:

Bull's eye: these women's idea of poverty probably means they'll have to vacation in Barbados instead of Monaco. :rolleyes:

[DragonLady]

Yes; those of us who've missed a few meals know that there are many things more important than anything on that list will ever be.

Except, maybe, the taxi after dark. That depends on where you live. ;) I have, in fact, been known to skip lunch to take a cab or a bus home rather than walk. But that's one lunch, not "going hungry" which is a whole 'nother thing (believe me).

[Sasha_S]

Wow, stuff that, I love my grub! :D
x

[LovingLife]

I think everyone needs a little luxury in thier lives!
Like Ben n Jerrys after a break up or being able to bundle a childrens party into a taxi, but going so far as to be on rations... Gosh!

[viking_quest]

I'd be willing to miss a meal so I could take a taxi after dark, but I'm paranoid when the sun goes down and I wouldn't be outside without a vehicle after dark.
The rest of them though, food is more important. I'm mean and nasty if I haven't eaten for the day.

[dearladydisdain]

Wow. I'm pretty prissy, but I don't care about any of these things. Except for maybe good quality wine, but if it comes down to it, I can drink the cheap stuff juuuust as easily. :eyebrows:

[Copasetic]

I somehow doubt many of these women have ever actually been hungry :twocents:

100% agreed.

Polls like this always remind me of how unfeminine I am. :o None of those things are all that appealing to me.

[NiAosSi]

"I would rather go naked than wear fur." That's about the only adage I go by... Starve and get a haircut - stupid women. I pick that big fat plate of food over a haircut ANY day!

[Flynn]

I somehow doubt many of these women have ever actually been hungry :twocents:

Agreed.

Either that, or they look at "rations" as "omg celeb diet opp!"

[RancheroTheBee]

To be honest, I'm rather offended by this. Not because I'm somehow concerned that women would rather go without food than concealer or haircuts, but because the way the article words the findings makes it obvious that they published it to snark about how stupid women can be. I say this because the article doesn't mention what men might choose. It also doesn't even bother to explain how this poll was set up, like in the event that it was worded in a way that FORCED women to chose a luxury item they may theoretically choose over food.

Also, I really don't think the majority of people would actually choose these items if they had to experience poverty in practice. In fact, if you were at the point where it was "food vs. haircut", I don't think anyone would choose the haircut.

Lastly, I think it's pretty obvious that this was published in an attempt to make women feel less guilty over craving certain items when they can barely afford food, thereby satisfying OK!s advertisers.

I'm sorry to go on a big rant, but I'm appalled at how anti-feminist these kinds of articles are.

[Chromis]

I'm actually surprised people would skip a meal in order to ride in a taxi. I've lived in some pretty sketchy places and have never had to take a taxi because of nightfall even in Los Angeles. Then again, I do not drive and in my world taxis are something rich New Yorkers on television take, not normal people!

[NiAosSi]

To be honest, I'm rather offended by this. Not because I'm somehow concerned that women would rather go without food than concealer or haircuts, but because the way the article words the findings makes it obvious that they published it to snark about how stupid women can be. I say this because the article doesn't mention what men might choose. It also doesn't even bother to explain how this poll was set up, like in the event that it was worded in a way that FORCED women to chose a luxury item they may theoretically choose over food.

Also, I really don't think the majority of people would actually choose these items if they had to experience poverty in practice. In fact, if you were at the point where it was "food vs. haircut", I don't think anyone would choose the haircut.

Lastly, I think it's pretty obvious that this was published in an attempt to make women feel less guilty over craving certain items when they can barely afford food, thereby satisfying OK!s advertisers.

I'm sorry to go on a big rant, but I'm appalled at how anti-feminist these kinds of articles are.

That's a great point. The media does nothing to satisfy feminist ideals. I mean some women REALLY would choose a haircut over food. A lot of them want to be super skinny... Sadly, starving is always the option, as is looking good. I know people (not just women) who would rather take that last $50 and get a dye job or a mani-pedi than have money for lunch and dinner. Sad, but society programs us in such a way that this is an acceptable choice.

[akurah]

To be honest, I'm rather offended by this. Not because I'm somehow concerned that women would rather go without food than concealer or haircuts, but because the way the article words the findings makes it obvious that they published it to snark about how stupid women can be. I say this because the article doesn't mention what men might choose. It also doesn't even bother to explain how this poll was set up, like in the event that it was worded in a way that FORCED women to chose a luxury item they may theoretically choose over food.

Also, I really don't think the majority of people would actually choose these items if they had to experience poverty in practice. In fact, if you were at the point where it was "food vs. haircut", I don't think anyone would choose the haircut.

Lastly, I think it's pretty obvious that this was published in an attempt to make women feel less guilty over craving certain items when they can barely afford food, thereby satisfying OK!s advertisers.

I'm sorry to go on a big rant, but I'm appalled at how anti-feminist these kinds of articles are.

Would I choose a haircut over the typical American fast food diet?

Yeah, probably. Food is gasoline, for a lack of a better analogy, and I can get fuel just as well from backyard garden grown veggies and ramen noodles just as readily as the Extra Large Supersized Quadruple McCheeseBurger.

Would I choose a haircut over food, period? Not so much. I am lazy in that I will often allow my body to go hungry rather than take the time to prepare a meal (laziness trumping discomfort), but I never get anywhere near the ballpark of starvation, and I'm thankful for that.

[Elphie]

taxis are something rich New Yorkers on television take
And broke NYers too! Especially when we don't know our way around!

Sadly, I know enough people like this that must make this poll somewhat accurate. Needs before wants, people!

[Lamb]

Hm, I would willingly fast a day or two for good wine... :eyebrows: I am drinking a glass as I type. So much better than a haircut, or comfort food. :toast:

[Wavelength]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought takeaway is food. Chinese takeout, Chinese takeaway, same thing, right? Of course someone would rather have tasty takeout than live on rations.

And I don't even know what #9 is.

[Elphie]

I looked up #9, it's concealer. Yves Saint Laurent.

[teela1978]

Well how do they define living on rations? (I'm from a generation that hasn't seen this...) And how many meals of rations per item? I'll take a crappy lunch if I can have good wine with dinner. Same goes for a lot of those. I wonder if the results would be similar in the USA.

[DragonLady]

Well how do they define living on rations?

Good question. To me, living on rations is the equivalent of eating at St. Vincent's food bank or such.

But maybe the majority thinks of rations as food coupons like during the war? If so, that was adequate nutrition (as I understand it), but sparse on things like sugar and coffee.

[Darkhorse1]

The problem with these polls are who was polled??? General public? What cultures? Where? What was their income?

I bet if you divided up different cultures, income and locations, you'd see a lot more diversity in those answers.

My top 10 things I'd rather live on rations than go without:
1. My kitties, their health and well being
2. Riding horses
3. Teaching
4. Living
5. Competing
6. Nature
7. Friendship
8. Long hair
9. My bed :D
10. Life's lessons

[Tangles]

That's a weird poll. It was obviously tongue in cheek though. I don't take it seriously, though I do think it makes women look kind of vapid.

I think good quality makeup is the ONLY one of the listed that I consider even vaguely important.

[teela1978]

Good question. To me, living on rations is the equivalent of eating at St. Vincent's food bank or such.

But maybe the majority thinks of rations as food coupons like during the war? If so, that was adequate nutrition (as I understand it), but sparse on things like sugar and coffee.

The link implies that it's a UK based poll, so I would imagine the rations required during WWII are what it's talking about.

ETA: cheese rations were 2 oz per week per person. No way any of us could do that :cheese:

[Spiffyhink]

I agree with RancheroTheBee. In fact, I often wonder where they get the people for these types of things, because whenever I see (online or offline) polls meant to shove women into boxes, they always manage to uphold whatever stereotype the publication's trying to push, regardless of how ridiculous it might seem. I know if I asked the majority of the women I knew, none of them would consider any of the above to be all that important (except for the taxi after dark, which many--myself included--don't consider to be a luxury. "One of these things is not like the others...")

[Masara]

[QUOTE=teela1978;601827
ETA: cheese rations were 2 oz per week per person. No way any of us could do that :cheese:[/QUOTE]

Ah, but if you were a vegetarian you got an extra 3oz. :) My dad was a bit of a fussy eater and didn't eat much meat, so his family declared him as a vegetarian, that way he shared the few meat based thinsg he did eat (like ham) and the family got extra cheese and eggs.

From what my parents have told me, you could eat quite well on rations and most people suplemented it from their own gardens or by swappig with neighbours.

Going hungry for a decent bottle of wine=no
Not stuffing myself all the time, but eating reasonably and having decent wine=why not?

[teela1978]

Ah, but if you were a vegetarian you got an extra 3oz. :) My dad was a bit of a fussy eater and didn't eat much meat, so his family declared him as a vegetarian, that way he shared the few meat based thinsg he did eat (like ham) and the family got extra cheese and eggs.

From what my parents have told me, you could eat quite well on rations and most people suplemented it from their own gardens or by swappig with neighbours.

Going hungry for a decent bottle of wine=no
Not stuffing myself all the time, but eating reasonably and having decent wine=why not?

I think I could manage on 5 oz of cheese for extra luxuries.

[DragonLady]

Yes; that puts a different complexion on the matter. I'd venture to say that I'd be willing to "go on rations" if it meant being able to healthy and that I could keep some of my more important luxuries. But that's not the same as "going hungry" which is what the title says.

To be honest, as a middle-aged American, it probably wouldn't really hurt me to "go on (self-regulated) rations" and spend more of my money on really healthy food than I do. But if I did, I'd spend a lot more on groceries, and wouldn't have as many nice hair toys or many other little luxuries. Eating healthy is expensive, and it's so much more gratifying to buy cheaper ground beef and a lovely cheesecake (or haircut or whatever) than it is to forgo the niceties for the better choices.

Discipline, I guess, is the main issue. The discipline to give up wants for needs. Or to give up some wants for other, harder-to-obtain ones.

[kdaniels8811]

I am thinking this is one of those made up polls. Or they polled a very small sampling of women. Sounds like BS to me.

[florenonite]

Yes; those of us who've missed a few meals know that there are many things more important than anything on that list will ever be.

Except, maybe, the taxi after dark. That depends on where you live. ;) I have, in fact, been known to skip lunch to take a cab or a bus home rather than walk. But that's one lunch, not "going hungry" which is a whole 'nother thing (believe me).

Yeah, I'd go with the taxi after dark in some places, but I agree it's not "going hungry", even for me (and I pass out and get headaches if I don't eat often enough).


100% agreed.

Polls like this always remind me of how unfeminine I am. :o None of those things are all that appealing to me.

Me too! The wine, were it replaced with ale, maybe. And the taxi home if I lived somewhere sketchy.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought takeaway is food. Chinese takeout, Chinese takeaway, same thing, right? Of course someone would rather have tasty takeout than live on rations.

And I don't even know what #9 is.

Aye, takeaway is food.


Good question. To me, living on rations is the equivalent of eating at St. Vincent's food bank or such.

But maybe the majority thinks of rations as food coupons like during the war? If so, that was adequate nutrition (as I understand it), but sparse on things like sugar and coffee.

The impression I get is that people who lived in rural areas or small towns, and had back gardens, did all right. They could keep vegetable gardens and chickens to supplement their diets. However, if you lived in a big city, however, it was different. There's a famous story of how the guy in charge of rationing was shown a person's meat ration and said it was plenty, but it transpired that he thought he was looking at a day's ration and it was, in fact, a week's.

And luxuries like coffee remained rationed until 1953. Bananas were rationed till around 1950, too. So it really was a rather basic diet during the war itself.


The problem with these polls are who was polled??? General public? What cultures? Where? What was their income?

Probably their readers :p That's my guess, at least, as I, too, am a British woman and don't know anyone who would really take any of these things in exchange for food, except the taxi maybe.

[nowxisxforever]

Polls like this always remind me of how unfeminine I am. :o None of those things are all that appealing to me.

I agree. I'm a bit of a girl in a lot of ways (like shiny/sparkly/cute things, love BPAL, love long hair and can talk about it forever, love oils- coconut/jojoba oils for skin and hair, and 'luxury' soaps and conditioners (*real*, not this fake SLS crap) and all that... and I'll wear skirts or jeans, but I refuse to wear or purchase makeup for everyday use (once in a blue moon I'll get some cheap makeup for a dressy occasion, but it's a very rare blue moon indeed...), I don't carry useless "clutches", I don't wax (though it'd be easier), don't go to salons ever (too expensive).... blech.:confused:

[nowxisxforever]

Also, I must live in a really safe area, because I walk home for about 30 minutes after dark in the middle of town and don't feel wary at all. I would *not* give up anything in order to take a taxi, it just seems silly. If it's a distance I can bus back from, I'll also end up walking 5-20 minutes to get home after the bus, which is a fair amount of time for me.

It's a wonder I'm chubby, I walk more than a lot of the skinny girls I know! I'm not afraid of a little nighttime walk home from work.

[Kiraela]

What is sad, is that I do know a few women who would, and even have, given up several days' worth of food for themselves(and their kids!) for a spa treatment or wax, or fancy haircuts, etc.


Me personally? The only thing I'd give up more than 1/4 of my regular food for, is fruit. That's right. Strawberries are my luxury item. I don't really worry much about taxis after dark (then again, I hardly ever go out after dark without DBF, who looks like a longish haired, biker-blacksmith, so I've never really considered it)

[bluemoon1891]

I would definitely choose a taxi over food as I live in an area where you can easily get mugged or stabbed walking alone at night.

Being small and petite I often get harassed by perverts even in broad daylight. :mad:

You can't exactly worry about your health if you're....well, not alive.

[Unofficial_Rose]

Taxi home after dark seems quite rational. Then again I hate taking cabs so I tend not to go to something where I'll have to come home from a dangerous area alone: I'd want to have someone's place to stay at, or I'd leave earlier, or I wouldn't go. A black cab driver was recently sent down for having raped countless women, and there are lots of this type driving unlicensed cabs, so many, that women are told to never take them alone in the UK at least. :(

I used to be a bit like this about getting my roots done, when I was blonde! :o Simply because after 8 weeks it looked so awful. Not so bothered about cut, though. And someone like me could benefit from missing a meal or two - I could live off my fat reserves for a while, tbh.

Of course, now I use henna + indigo, it's not a problem.

I frequently have a bar of chocolate when I'm out and about, and then am not hungry for lunch. Another bad habit. :o

[LovingLife]

"I would rather go naked than wear fur."

That quote is really lovely!:p

[rhubarbarin]

Let's all keep in mind that rations or 'basic grub supplies' as the article puts it has nothing to do with going hungry.. just a no-frills, probably bland and repetitive diet.

I don't do/consume any of the things on that list and never have! So, can't relate.

[Fractalsofhair]

Yikes! I would rather eat poor quality food than not have my garden, but well, I don't think we're talking about a garden full of flowers, more like cut ones... Eating poorly regularly(If it just tasted bad but was healthy and vegetarian etc) might be tolerable if I had good chocolate sometimes.

For a taxi it would depend on where I was, what I'm wearing and whom I'm with. If I'm with my boyfriend all dressed up for a date in a very bad part of the city, I'm not counting on him to protect me, and I would expect us to take a taxi or public transit as opposed to walking. My boyfriend is umm... Slender and well, not exactly Mr " Brawny HE MAN PROTECTS WOMAN" etc, more like runs away crying and calls the cops. I'm similar and it doesn't bother me, but a taxi might be needed with him if we were all dolled up and in a very bad part... XD Now if I was with my muscular guy friends(or the few female friends I have that are quite muscular), and we were dressed plainly, I wouldn't have an issue walking pretty much anywhere, unless there was a huge issue going on. Generally a group of tall muscular guys and a few females aren't attacked or anything, since well, one person walking alone might be a better target and such, from what I know of city life. I don't mind taking public transit anywhere at any time though, I'll just sit near the front or with older people if I think there's some people that might be a little bit dangerous around.

As for makeup, I'd rather simply go without makeup (Isn't Touche Eclat a type of makeup?) if I couldn't have my minerals. As for wine, I don't drink, but what's the point of a good wine without good food! As for waxing, that seems a little silly. You can wax at home, or shave if it's such a big deal(Plus if everyone was on rations and we each got to choose one thing on the list, I doubt any guy will fault a woman for choosing her chocolate or makeup etc instead of waxing). Removing body hair isn't worth gross tasting food, IMO. But I don't remove body hair for the most part(Pluck eyebrows), so I suppose I'm not the best person to ask. The fact that the woman who's waxing her leg is sorta smiling is disturbing. I've gotten my brows waxed, and it wasn't something to smile about... I do like my essential oils for perfume, but I don't mind smelling like nothing...

As for the regular haircuts, that seems silly. I suppose if you have very short hair, it could look awkward, but well, hair does grow and looks fine. If one has hair that is longer than their shoulders, it won't look awkward if it's been a few months since a cut in most cases...

In general this seems extreme, that a person would rather eat horrid food than most of the things. Skipping a meal wouldn't be worth any of these things(well maybe a garden, but I could make all sorts of teas and yummy things to stav off the hunger! At least until my hypoglycemia kicks in XD) WWII British style rations might justify a very nice bar of chocolate once a month, but not severe rations/disgusting food.

[swanns]

100% agreed.

Polls like this always remind me of how unfeminine I am. :o None of those things are all that appealing to me.

That's what I thought as well! Sometimes I wonder how I ever found people with whom I feel like I fit in in the first place... :rolleyes:

[zombi]

Self-trim, get BPAL, buy an RRRRRRRR machine and quityerbitchin.

hahahahah! BUT BPAL NEVER SAVED ME ANY MONEY! those darned addictive jerks!! :eyebrows: