I hate contemporary definitions of “flattering hairstyles” for women.

The hatred that Pamela Andresson got for her Met Gala hair style got me think about hairstyles alot. I was in the minority of liking her style and thinkig it brought out her features well.

I realised that I hate a lot of contemporary hair styles.

My reflection is that a lot of characteristisc of styles that are tauted as “flattering” are about *making women smaller*

The whole point of “softening the features” seems to be about making women appear *less intimidating* and erasing features that are intense. Making high cheeks appear less angular, making foreheads smaller.

There is a style that I hate in particular, that I call the ‘ face framing triangle’ -which consists of air shredded at the front and framing the face inward, making it appear larger at the jaw, and narrower at the forehead. My view is that it is specifially designed to hide female intelligence, because larger foreheads are associated with bigger brains.

When a hairstyle is criticised, it is often called “severe”. What is wrong with severe? To me it means “can’t mess with that woman” and it is not a good reason to dislike that look.

I want to look sharp and smart, not soft and stupid.

Of course I can look this way, nobody is stopping me, just as those who do want to have a “soft” look can have it- it’s just about what we commonly label as good & bad.