So, there's this 'war of words' is going on over at UT over a history student's unbelievable op-ed piece in the Daily Texan. Here's an excerpt of why the firestorm started in the first place:
What's not sexy is feminism (not to be confused with femininity), which is directly responsible for the disappearance of our beloved dresses and the adoption of pants by the "new woman." Like all fashions, pants are symbolic of something - in this case masculinity - through their allowance of physical activity. Dresses, the antithesis of pants, symbolize femininity through grace and elegance. Men find elegance in women to be attractive, and dresses are a physical manifestation of femininity. The wearing of pants by women represents the masculinization of the fairer sex, which is not at all attractive.
Right. So. Uhm. There's Facebook uproar all over the place. My favorite was this simple photo response.
The only reason she looks so bad is that you can see her nuts.
Amen to the op-ed. The writer is right on. Hilary wears pants to show her lesbianism and to hide her cankles.
Also, The link to the woman flipping the bird makes the point that pants and women that flip the bird is not sexy.
RSS
Hilary looks like ass in pants suits.
Just saying.