marahmarie: How to Even, for Dummies (how to even)

Mind you, in the mid to late 70s I was anything from 7-10 years old.

I had shoulders.

Sometimes they were bare.

I didn't choose my clothes, my mom did. But I happened to like having shoulders, so this was no problem.

The teachers in my (small, well-to-do, perhaps slightly liberal) public school said nothing.

The kids said nothing. They bullied me (I was reed-thin and always sick, which doesn't go over well with bullies, believe you me) but not for that.

The neighbors said nothing.

Back then I did things like: walk for miles unattended, hang around a nearby train station because I liked watching people more than I liked watching trains, and wander through the woods either alone or with boys my own age. While I was a girl.

No one said a word. About my shoulders, nor any of the other stuff I did.

But shoulders? Are apparently a reason to be tortured.

Shoulders? Going off on them now is a thing.

So I guess I had a particularly amazing childhood, considering.

I'm not talking about my shoulders getting me tortured now, either - I'm talking about Ivanka Trump's. She wore this stunning, cheapo off-the-rack dress that showed off her shoulders.

They were bare.

It was too much for people to take.

She's caught almost nothing but hell for it, since (some praise, but mostly hell).

And I don't understand.

I refuse to say, "Well, at least it's not her bottom or breasts" because it's sexist to suggest those areas should not be shown off, too. That's the absurdity of this: we're going off on shoulders now? What's next? Ears?

In light of this, if my mom were here, we'd go shopping to buy up things with no shoulders and take our shoulderless selves out on future dining, shopping and sightseeing jaunts like, "Take that, shoulder sexists, we're a two-for-one. And you won't say a word, because we know how to carry ourselves".

I just. Cannot. Even. With this horseshit.

And I am kind of a prude - not when it comes to how to dress, more in other areas - so I really can't even.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)

To say that "Russian interference affected vote totals in 39 states" is a lie, or, at best, an unsubstantiated opinion without basis in fact, if you read the article the person quoted linked to for their latest waltz through alternate reality. Better yet, read the article that the article links to, because Esquire is not exactly an arbiter of all things political.

I hate to sound pedantic here, but this is not the first time I have called out this particular user without mentioning them by name for either misstating the truth (but perhaps innocently enough, the last time) or else flat out misrepresenting it, as in this case, and the sad part is that it probably won't be the last if this pattern holds. I'd like it to not hold, which is why I'm going a bit out of my way here.

Misleading and lying only every once in a while is still misleading and lying. Credentials do not negate that; if anything, they amplify it. The truth is still the truth, whether obfuscated by someone who Knows How To Do This or not. Someone who does Know How To Do This has a greater responsibility to stick to the truth than someone who doesn't.

Also, charmingly enough, because I don't know whether to feel flattered or tell them to go find their own gig, this same person recently cribbed my words to describe what topic matter they cover and why they cover it, while being completely incorrect about the second part of that because the first part is completely different from what I do.

Yes, really. Comments are disabled; discuss under your own locked post, because I have nothing further to add to this.