The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will later today release its judgment on two highly charged U.S. District Court rulings regarding women’s rights in the realm of hair color, both natural and artificial.
It is no small joke to suggest that the court will be forced to split hairs in its decisions, as the two rulings are diametrically opposed.
Blondes v. Big Cosmetics
In December of last year, in Blondes v. Big Cosmetics, U.S. District Senior Judge James Robart of Seattle seemed to side with the all-blonde plaintiff, Blonde Locks Matter organization that sought to protect natural blondeness. Judge Robart issued broad injunctions against the manufacture and sale of all shades of blond hair colorings, as well as a restraining order on all licensed cosmetologists to apply or otherwise create the appearance of blond hair on women (and men) who do not have natural, genetically blond hair.
But less than two weeks later, Judge Robart seemingly confounded the issue by ruling in Brunettes v. Blonde Privilege that non-blondes have the constitutional right to color their hair blonde, provided those women can prove changing the color of their hair prevents or otherwise diminishes discrimination they suffer due to having black, brown, gray, or red hair.
Blonde Locks Matter
Blonde Locks Matter spokeswoman Ms. Sandy Tendrille, appearing on the Fox News Happening Now, expressed optimism that the Ninth Circuit would rule in favor of natural blondes.
“It’s not right,” said Ms. Tendrille, a blue-eyed towhead, “For non-blondes to steal our color. Our unique specialness is diminished every time a brunette colors her hair blond. So many women now color their hair that there’s this supposition on the part of people to look at us and assume we, too, colored our hair, that we’re not real blondes. Do you have any idea how insulted we are to constantly have other women ask us where we get our hair colored?”
Ms. Locke bristled at the suggestion she might sound petty.
“Look. Blondes didn’t just pop up out of nowhere. As the smallest genetic subset on the planet [FACT CHECK: Red hair is the smallest genetic subset], we’ve had our share of suffering. We were forged. Beginning in the early Medieval Ages the Vikings began raiding England, where pockets of genetically disposed blondes lived. The Vikings selected the most attractive male and female blonds as slaves and took us back to Denmark and Sweden. They killed the homely and ugly brunettes on the spot. And let me add, our blond genetic subset is doomed to extinction as we marry non-blonds. Blondness is not a dominant gene when paired with non-blond. We’re dying off and all we’re asking from the courts is some respect for who we are. We feel mocked seeing brunettes color their hair blond.”
Host Jenna Lee asked if the mocking was real or merely imagined. Ms. Locke gasped:
Dumb Blonde Jokes Are Hate Speech
“Have you never heard of dumb blonde jokes? That type of humor isn’t funny – it’s hate speech, pure and simple. It was started in the early 1960s by catty brunettes envious of blondes. It’s a way of diminishing the beauty of our blondness. The fact is, the average blonde is better educated and has a higher IQ than non-blondes. And, we’re more successful in the job market and earn more money. We’re more likely, on a per capita basis, to win elected offices and to hold high levels of corporate power. Not because we are blonde, per se, but because of our capabilities.”
Charges of Blonde Privilege
An hour later on the Laura Ingraham Show, Gloria Allred, the attorney for the plaintiff in Brunettes v. Blonde Privilege, presented a different story and upbraided the Blonde Locks Matter movement.
“If brunettes are appropriating any culture when we color our hair, we are appropriating the privileged culture enjoyed by blond women. Because their hair stands out visually, they are noticed. Men’s heads turn even if they’re not conscious why they are turning. Blond hair is like a blinking light. It attracts the eye. Especially the unenlightened male eye.
“Men will unthinkingly glance over the heads of ten beautiful brunettes for a mere glance at an average looking blonde. Historically, this has resulted in blondes being unfairly privileged in a male dominated world. We — that is, brunettes like ourselves, Laura — we think being able to color our hair blond levels the playing field. And may I ask, Laura, who does your hair? Do you have a card?”
While natural blondes and blonde-wannabes anxiously wait to see which of Judge Robart’s diametrically opposite opinions the Ninth Circuit Court will uphold, one group of women aren’t waiting. Over one hundred members of The Red Headed League are presently rioting in front of the James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, home of the Ninth Circuit Court. Live TV coverage on CNN shows these red-headed women screaming, scratching and clawing at the faces of law enforcement, landing punches and kicks, and throwing kitchen utensils and small pieces of furniture through windows.
The Red Headed League Riots in San Francisco
While being hauled off in handcuffs, The Red Headed League spokeswoman Mary Kate Danaher explained, “We’re only trying to change the tired stereotype of red head women hot-headed and violent!”
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.
The offer renews after one year at the regular price of $79.99.