Thursday, October 30, 2014

This Debate on Catcalling Is Ridiculous on Multiple Levels

Yesterday, I read an article entitled “This Is What Catcalling Really Looks Like,” which was published in response to “Hey, ladies – catcalls are flattering! Deal with it.”

I checked out the anti-catcalling one first, in which Yahoo explains: “Wearing jeans and a crew neck T-shirt, Shoshana B. Roberts walks in Soho, Times Square, Harlem, and more Manhattan neighborhoods, and in each she’s treated similarly. Men saying, ‘hey, baby,’ ‘god bless,’ ‘damn girl,’ and ‘How you doing today?’ on repeat.”

To me, the accompanying video largely seemed unremarkable. Though it did get me thinking…

First off, no, there is no acceptable reason for a random guy to ogle a girl’s fully-clothed butt and go “damn.” Guys, if you like someone’s backside, great. Keep it to yourselves. We don’t need to know your every thought. Unless you’re our hubbies, you’re not that important in this regard.

Also, if you hit on a girl and she ignores you, don’t be telling her she’s being inappropriate for that choice. She never asked you to impress your existence on her in the first place.

Now apparently, some women disagree with that assessment, however, judging by that second article that tells women to “deal with it.” Then again, if Doree Lewak represents that kind of woman, then that kind of woman is an embarrassment based on just her first line of: “Summer to me means three things: heat, hemlines and hard hats.”

… And her second line: “It’s the time of year when I can parade around in a skimpy dress with strategic cutouts that would make my mom wince.”

… And her third and fourth lines: “And when I know I’m looking good, I brazenly walk past a construction site, anticipating that whistle and ‘Hey, mama!’ catcall. Works every time – my ego and I can’t fit through the door!”

Like I said: an embarrassment.

Admittedly, I know my ego usually hikes a notch or two when some harmless nitwit hits on me. I have a mental catalog of reactions my physical form has elicited. But that’s not where my real self-worth lies, so “my ego and I” can still “fit through the door” just fine, thank you very much.

Not to mention that men can just as easily make women feel like dirt with that kind of attention. I’ve experienced that too, and it takes my ego down a whole lot more than it goes up otherwise.

So here’s my advice on the whole-catcalling debate…

Women who go around begging for male attention, grow up and stop trying to make it all about you. Oh yeah, and your looks? They won’t last, so shape up on the maturity department already.

And men who go around demanding female attention? Same advice: It’s not all about you. Plus, nobody likes a dirty old man. Do everyone a favor and start practicing how not to be one now.

Finally, this is for everyone, both men and women… Can we be a little bit more careful what we label as what? Because when we say that some passing male saying “What’s up. beautiful? Have a good day” in a non-creepy voice as “verbal street harassment,” we’re detracting from the actual definition of “harassment.”

Just for the record, people, that's a bad thing.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

What to Think of Democrat Challenger Vincent Sheheen Calling Nikki Haley a "Whore"

Republican Governor Nikki Haley got called a “whore” last week by her Democrat opponent at a campaign event.

Not good, right?

Except that it honestly did seem to be a slip of the tongue. What Democrat State Senator Vincent Sheheen meant to say was “We are going to escort her out the door,” accidentally pronouncing “her” as “whore” instead.

Oops! Right?

It really could have just been a gaffe, and normally I’d be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when I haven’t heard of him making sexist statements before. (Then again, I haven’t heard of him saying anything at all before. Up to ten minutes ago, I didn’t even know he existed.)

What’s a lot more disconcerting is the reaction afterward.

The audience seems to catch his mistake before he does, with a lot of them laughing and some of them hooting. You can see the recognition dawn on Sheheen’s face too; he smiles and laughs a little, then goes right back onto the main message.

Like it’s no big deal whatsoever to call a woman a whore.

Admittedly I can’t get as upset as Ann Romney, Haley’s big-time supporter, says she did at the clip. According to her, “My nerve endings went haywire. It’s so upsetting when you know someone can say something like that about a woman, and not have any kind of reaction. It’s so unacceptable. Nikki is a great girl and has been a great governor.”

In addition, Sheheen was on stage and in the moment, which makes analyzing issues and reacting accordingly a lot more difficult than otherwise. However, calling a woman a “whore” is the kind of thing your campaign managers are supposed to catch and address appropriately, at least with a quick tweet of an apology or something.

Unless, of course, they’re so used to that kind of language – and larger mentality – flying around the campaign office that they don’t think twice when they hear it out in public.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Is the Do-It-Yourself Man’s Man Dead?

I’m reading an article this morning about how Do-It-Yourself, or DIY, projects (e.g. home improvement, etc.) are on a serious decline in Great Britain.

The UK’s Telegraph writes, “… undeniably, today’s 20- and 30-somethings don’t seem to possess your traditional “dad skills.” The dismal fact that a mere five per cent of 18-24s would attempt to unblock a sink doesn’t bode well for humanity – unless you’re a plumber.”

More than likely, a lot of that stems from humanity’s technological advances over the last few decades, which have made us both increasingly capable of accomplishing artistic endeavors and increasingly lazy of performing anything manual. But the Telegraph has another theory to throw out there in the blame game. And it’s kinda interesting…

In asking “whether the decline in DIY is actually indicative of a deeper malaise in masculinity,” it reminisces how “DIY used to make us feel manly. We’d chuck on a tool belt, press our power drill’s trigger – perhaps while growling – and feel the testosterone course through our veins.

“The trouble is, being a man – in the old-fashioned sense – is deeply unfashionable… these days. At some point this century, bombarded by an agonizingly right-on, feminist, PC doctrine through the liberal media, many men decided it was time to stop being men and embrace their inner sister.”

Note three key words in there: “agonizingly right-on.” The fact that the Telegraph is calling society’s emasculation even remotely appropriate shows that it’s part of that “liberal media” too.

Yet even this news source is lamenting how, “as we lost our rough edges and took on more of what had traditionally been regarded as female roles, no one really stopped to question whether equality for women came with a cost for masculinity. If everything overtly ‘masculine’ is dismissed as sexist, what’s left of men is, arguably, sexless.”

Yeah. Either that or exceptionally confused.

Admittedly, this is a British paper opining on British culture. And British men are notoriously pansies compared to the American male since they’ve had more practice at being liberal dimwits.

Let’s face it though: Mankind isn’t so manly over here in the U.S. either these days.

I’m not saying we should encourage cave-man mentality. But there is a healthy stage somewhere between men clubbing women on the head and dragging them off by the hair… and this rather useless brand of wimp we’re pushing now.

Personally, I’m all for men fixing things. The more they want to do those Do-It-Yourself projects, the more time I have to focus on accomplishing my own goals.

Which, incidentally, is what feminism is supposed to be about. Isn’t it?

Friday, October 24, 2014

“Rival Survivor” Sticks Democrat Politician and Republican Politician on Deserted Island

Watch out, world! There’s a new reality TV show on the American airwaves.

“Ho hum,” you say? Those things are a dime a dozen?


This isn’t your average, everyday dramafest with immature models, shallow playa-playas, or cut-throat business people. This time, realty TV is taking you into the world of politics… and sharks… and extreme living conditions… and survival skills… ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!!

[Cue the dramatic music.]

In “Rival Survivor,” two United States Senators – one a Democrat and one a Republican – find themselves dropped about a quarter-mile out into the ocean in shark-infested waters, at what time they’ll have to swim through stiff currents to a small, deserted island where they have no choice but to get along… or suffer the consequences.

[Need breath! Need breath!]

Forget that Senator Jeff Flake, a Republican from Arizona, and Senator Martin Heinrich, a Democrat from New Mexico, seem to have gotten along just fine to begin with. This is raw! This is real! This is “Rival Survivor”!

Ok, yeah, it’s pretty much like the original and totally tired “Survivor” series, just with politicians. But get pumped people, ‘cause this is cool!

You know what would be even cooler though? If said politicians – both dimwitted Democrats and ridiculous Republicans – would stop pulling dumb publicity stunts like this and actually get something done in Washington, instead of on some Hollywood camera-crew infested island.

Now that’s reality TV I could watch.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

An Appeal to Republican Men

Yesterday, I bashed Democrat women. Today, I’m going to come down on Republican men.

I had a run-in with one such individual through my company recently. It started out with a racist joke in an email he wanted me to forward on to one of our editors. In perfectly professional language, I told him that I found his humor inappropriate and asked him to refrain from sending me such information in the future.

His response: “Lighten up. It was for Steve.”

My response: “Then send it to Steve. This is my email, not his.”

That didn’t go over well, as his next brilliant comeback was to play the gender card, accusing me of being a feminazi who needed to be put in my place. I didn’t read the whole rant, as it was long and chauvinistic, mentioning how women don’t have properly functioning brains, etc. etc.

Oh yeah, and he also threatened to get me fired if I said “one more word to him.

Go figure, this little woman did exactly what she was told not to do, though my reply was a heck of a lot more logical and polite than his was. But it ultimately got me thinking…

The customer in question mentioned being 75-years old. He didn’t come right out and say “I’m a Republican man,” but I think it’s pretty safe to postulate that he is.

I can also easily gather with my fully functioning feminine brain that he feels emasculated by societal changes. Otherwise, why immediately and illogically play the gender card?

You know what though? He needs to grow up. Because he’s not doing anyone any good responding the way he did: not to women, not to men, not to feminazis and not for chauvinists.

All he did was make grossly inaccurate assumptions and ultimately make a fool of himself.

That’s hardly the best defense for his campaign for respect. It is, however, amazing ammunition for the opposite side.

Let’s say for argument’s sake that I am a feminazi (instead of a strong, conservative woman who doesn’t appreciate taking trash from anyone on any side). Does he really think his belligerent rebuttals have any hope of changing me?

Heck no! It’s only going to inflame my inaccurate opinions of mankind even more.

I’ll grant you that sometimes violence necessitates violence. But I see no proof anywhere that close-minded ridiculousness necessitates close-minded ridiculousness.

So Republican men, I’m not saying you have to go out of your way to cater to Democrat women, or even women in general. But do us all a favor by not acting like dumbfounding caricatures of what you’re accused of being.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

An Appeal to 42% of Women Voters Before the Midterm Elections

Some women might be waking up in time for the midterm elections.

Back in September, an AP-GfK poll showed 40% of women leaning toward Republican candidates while 47% trended toward Democrats. October’s results indicate it’s now 44% and 42% respectively.

So why the difference? According to the above-linked Yahoo article, there’s the economy, and then About three-quarters say health care, terrorism, the threat posed by the Islamic State group and Ebola” come next in line.

Ebola alone is enough to scare a lot of voters out of trusting Obama or voting for his peeps, which I think is really, really stupid, just for the record. I mean, abysmal national security, a plummet in our world standing, unprotected borders, a rise in interracial violence, lies, arrogance and tons of taxpayer-paid vacations couldn’t shake their confidence in this president… But two people contracting Ebola inside the U.S. does?

That seems both belligerently blind and woefully self-focused at the same time. Which, I suppose, pretty much describes much of America these days anyway.

It’d be nice if we would consider something other than our immediate happiness for once. And women, I’m specifically talking to those 42% of you who are still putting your vote of confidence behind Democrat candidates.

How about we use our brains to set aside the feel good-style of feminism so prevalent today and instead consider how the federal government is taking $3 trillion away from us this year in taxes – thanks to Obama’s many hikes – and giving absolutely nothing of value back.

The results of liberal-Democrat efforts toward “empowering women” has resulted in twerking and other degrading, oversexualized and oversexualizing acts being deemed as acceptable and even laudable. As if we’re meant to be sex objects, giving free shows to whoever is nearby.

The results of liberal-Democrat efforts toward the “sexual revolution” has taken us to a world where virtual porn is a very real possibility in the future. Where men don’t need us for anything anymore, not even sex, and certainly not for companionship or support or balance.

Before you go to the polls, girls, ask yourselves if that’s really what you want for womankind.

None of this is to say that Republicans have all the answers. Because they’re rather pathetic too.

All I’m saying is that, let’s face it, they’re a heck of a lot better choice than the alternative right now.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Democrats in North Carolina Senate Race Equate Impeachment With Lynching

Here’s one of the many things wrong with Democrats these days…

They don’t care to know the difference between a reasonable, legal action like impeaching, and something utterly heinous and illegal like lynching.

For any Democrats reading, here’s the definition of “impeach:”

verb (used with object)
1.      to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.
2.      Chiefly Law. to challenge the credibility of:
“to impeach a witness.”
3.      to bring an accusation against.
4.      to call in question; cast an imputation upon:
“to impeach a person’s motives.”
5.      to call into account.
6.      Obsolete, impeachment.

And here’s the definition of “lynch:”

verb (used with object)
1.      to put to death, especially by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority.

See the difference? It’s kinda obvious, right?

Democrats down in North Carolina apparently aren’t getting a clue.

They littered churchgoer’s cars on Sunday with ads for their Senate choice, Kay Hagan. The flyers feature a photo of long-dead white people hanging a black man, with the caption:

Kay Hagan Doesn’t WIN!
Obama’s IMPEACHMENT Will Begin!
Vote in 2014

Along with not understanding the difference between two vastly different terms (We’re not even talking about apples and oranges here. We’re talking apples and drillbits!), the Democrats responsible also forgot to put an “If” before that first line.

As it is, it’s a little confusing.

And the rhyme is dreadful too. Go figure.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Maryland Voters Walk Out on President Obama at Midterm Election Rally

My state of Maryland is filled with a majority of people who don’t believe in using their intelligence.

Case in point: They voted for Obama in 2008. And even more damning is the fact that they voted for Obama again in 2012.

I mean, come on, people. Nobody should be THAT ignorant.

Yet Maryland is. It’s a depressing shame.

On the plus side, there does seem to be some hope that these people aren’t entirely unreachable. I mean, yes, it takes a hurricane for them to recognize that the wind is blowing, but they can still be taught. At least a little bit.

Reuters reports: “President Barack Obama made a rare appearance on the campaign trail on Sunday with a rally to support the Democratic candidate for governor in Maryland, but early departures of crowd members while he spoke underscored his continuing unpopularity.

“With approval levels hovering around record lows, Obama has spent most of his campaign-related efforts this year raising money for struggling Democrats, who risk losing control of the U.S. Senate in the Nov. 4 midterm election.

“Most candidates from his party have been wary of appearing with him during their election races because of his sagging popularity.”

There are a few exceptions to that rule, including Maryland’s Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, who is looking to be Maryland’s Governor Anthony Brown. Turns out the man should have stuck with what most of his fellow Democrats recognize: that the American people aren’t pleased with their self-absorbed, self-satisfied, obnoxious-as-anything president.

I’d congratulate Maryland or America in general for getting disgusted, but we should have recognized what an egotistical jerk Obama is a long time ago.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

President Obama Talks the Talk About Ebola... Kinda

Yahoo is reporting today that, “Trying to calm fearful Americans weeks from a pivotal election, President Barack Obama on Wednesday promised a ‘much more aggressive’ federal government response to Ebola, including health care SWAT teams to help inexperienced local hospitals cope with any new case on U.S. soil.”

Then he went and played golf.

Ok, I don’t actually think he did that, but you know he wanted to. The only thing he cares about in this situation is the midterm elections. And honestly, I’m kinda wondering how much he even cares about that.

It’s October 16. Those elections are in less than a month. Logically or not, America is freaking out about Ebola right now. And yet Obama doesn’t seem to be doing much in the way of damage control.

I’ve never thought our president was a stupid man, so I’m not going to call him or even his actions stupid now. In my opinion, his nonchalance is either because he has some other plan up his sleeves…

Or possibly, what it comes down to is that, yeah: He just really doesn’t care.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Is the Government to Blame for Ebola?

I’m looking at an article with the headline: “Government Has Failed In Its Job To Protect Americans From Ebola.”

I think that’s a really stupid headline, and I’ll tell you why.

The government has failed in its job to a do a heck of a lot. It’s failed at protecting us from terrorism. It’s failed at reigning in spending for economic security. It’s failed at maintaining citizen’s freedoms while giving free reign to illegal immigrants. It’s failed at behaving decently, of respecting the people and respecting its own limitations.

It’s an arrogant, over-bloated and increasingly worthless, money-sucking propaganda machine. And since that isn’t what it was created to do, it’s pretty much one giant, embarrassing failure.

However, I can’t blame the government for failing “in its job to protect Americans from Ebola.”

“Why not?” You ask.

“Because,” I answer. “The government isn’t God.”

The government isn’t God. End of story.

It can’t ensure our personal health and happiness in every situation. It has its responsibilities, and it has its place. But it can’t control airborne viruses or bodily fluids being exchanged between two people.

Sorry, but it’s true. Bad things happen sometimes. So do horrible things. There’s no way to prevent all of it, no matter how many rules and regulations we create and enforce.

Now in the case of those poor little tykes who’ve died from some mysterious disease in “refugee” towns? You know: the ones where the government is shipping illegal immigrants to instead of sending them packing back over the border… Yeah, go ahead and blame government for those tragedies.

And call President Obama all kinds of an idiot for promising that Ebola wouldn’t touch the U.S. The arrogant and uncaring little twit.

But considering how exceptionally contagious the disease is, and how interconnected we are with the rest of the world in perfectly legal and reasonable ways, the government can’t take any kind of credit for protecting or not protecting America from this health-scare.

It can’t solve every problem under the sun. It was never supposed to.

Monday, October 13, 2014

President Obama Plays His 200th Round of Golf

Here are a few fascinating statistics…

·         President Obama has been in office now for approximately 1725 days.
·         On Sunday, he played his 200th round of golf.
·         That’s one game of golf every 8.625 days.

You’d think he might be a bit too busy to play around that much, I mean what with the economic “recovery” held up by little more than federal tricks to inflate the dollar, the Middle East in constant turmoil, our borders compromised, our debt rising, our freedoms falling, our standing in the larger world a joke, the Ebola scare officially touching the country…

Etc., etc., etc.

Then again, maybe not.

And no. I have no idea what he's doing there either.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Wal-Mart Reduces Workers’ Hours, Then Cuts Health Insurance for Part-Timers

Everyone trash talks Wal-Mart, admittedly with some good reason.

I mean, the customer service alone can be downright appalling. At two stores in my area, they’re blank-faced unfriendly. In the third, I’ve had to wait 45 minutes to check out. No joke.

And that’s to say nothing about the customers. They’re weird to the point of being downright scary sometimes. Only a few years back, one of my closest Wal-Marts experienced a bleach fight between a baby momma and the new woman in her former man’s life.

One of them stalked the other down the cleaning goods aisle, then started opening containers and splashing them around. As I recall, 11 people had to go to the hospital thanks to that escapade.

However, Wal-Mart might not fully deserve its rotten rap for poor employee environments. At least it used to have a nice chunk of full-time workers that it offered health insurance too.

Again, “used to.” Though don’t be too hasty to start slamming corporate about that change.

The Associated Press is now reporting that: “Wal-Mart Stores Inc. plans to eliminate health insurance coverage for some of its part-time U.S. employees in a move aimed at controlling rising health care costs of the nation’s largest employer.”

Here are a few other details I gleaned from the article:

·         As of January 1, 2015, the new policy means that workers logging less than 30 hours a week on average will no longer be able to purchase health insurance through Wal-Mart.
·         This will affect 30,000 employees, which is approximately 5% of its total workforce.
·         Wal-Mart has been reducing its number of full-time employees since 2011.
·         Target, Home Depot and other big names have been doing the same thing.

Why are these capitalist institutions being so mean? Well, you don’t get to know until the sixth chunky paragraph:

“The announcement comes after Wal-Mart said far more U.S. employees and their families are enrolling in its health care plans than it had expected following rollout of the Affordable Care Act, which requires big companies to offer coverage to employees working 30 hours or more a week or face a penalty…

“Wal-Mart, which employs about 1.4 million full- and part-time U.S. workers, says about 1.2 million Wal-Mart workers and family members combined now participate in its health care plan… Wal-Mart now expects the impact of higher health care costs to be about $500 million for the current fiscal year, or about $170 million higher than the original estimate…”

Translation? Thanks for nothing Obamacare.

Friday, October 3, 2014

This Single Woman’s Opinion on Whether Good Guys Finish Last

I’m going to throw something out there to all of you males. Here’s the harsh but necessary truth on whether good guys finish last:

Good guys don’t. Wimps do.

Good guys are gentlemen. They think before they speak. They hold the door open for ladies. They don’t go around saying “I’d tap that” to every hot piece of you-know-what that comes along. In fact, they don’t say “I’d tap that” at all.

Wimps can do all of those things too, but they take it a step further. Because when they think before they speak, it’s because they’re too cowardly to speak at all, not because they’re trying to think of the best answer to give.

They hold the door open for ladies while moping about how the ladies will never pay them any lasting attention. And they don’t go around saying “I’d tap that” because they’re just so sure they won’t get the chance to do any tapping at all when they’re “nice guys” and “nice guys finish last.”

Gentlemen know that sometimes life throws everyone hard knocks; and when those hard knocks are at their own doors, they man up and deal with them responsibly.

Wimps focus on how difficult their lives always are, completely ignoring how half of their boo hoo hooing is of their own making.

Fellas, there’s a difference between a truly “good guy” or even a “nice guy” and a mere wimp. Gentlemen actually do come out ahead, while wimps wallow in their own self-pity-inspired tears.

Speaking as a single woman in her early thirties, I’d rather be a single woman in my early sixties than be with a wimp.

Stop being pathetic, and grow a spine already. Otherwise, you’re not fit to finish anything but last… through your own darn fault.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Good2Go App Purports to Protect Women From Having Questionable Sex With Strangers

Just what we needed, peeps! There’s a new app out there for slutty smartphone users.

As a general rule, I try to avoid using sexually-charged negative terms, but sometimes I gotta call a spade a spade, especially when there’s some alliteration to be had out of it.

I can’t resist alliteration, in the same way some people can’t resist hooking up with veritable strangers. In other words, I could have said no; I just didn’t want to.

That’s the fine line the Good2Go app seeks to clarify, by telling men whether the women they’re macking on are in the proper frame of mind to make bad decisions. Sandton Technologies, which is incidentally run by a female – can’t blame this idiot idea on insensitive men, ladies! – designed it to tackle the issue of rape, “miscommunication” and “regretted activities.”

Here’s how the ridiculous app works, according to Yahoo!: When you’ve decided to have questionable sex, “open the app and hand her your phone, which asks if she’s down. The person you want to sleep with will have the opportunity to choose from three options: No, Thanks; Yes, but… we need to talk; and I’m Good2Go. Romantic!

“If your partner does indeed choose the third option, then a new set of questions will pop up, asking her to rank her level of sobriety… The choices range from Sober to Pretty Wasted. And if she chooses the latter, the app warns that she ‘cannot consent,’ denying permission” to have sex.

How dumb is that?

Pretty dumb, according to Yahoo! writer Alyssa Bereznak, but not really because people should be using their brains instead of their hormones. Nope, it’s because the app isn’t detailed enough. “Good2Go doesn’t detail what exactly a person is consenting to – whether it be oral sex, sexual intercourse, or another sexual act.”

Bereznak goes on to describe one case where the woman consented to more traditional sex but was then choked, slapped and subjected to anal sex despite her protestations. Should the two have “selected Good2Go’s Yes, but… we need to talk option and then gone over the ground rules,” she writes. “... would the app’s record of consent – which can easily be pulled by authorities – have helped or hurt Sulkowicz’s case against her rapist?”

I’m not trying to be insensitive, but how about we get to know people before we agree to have sex with them? That’s not to say that rape can’t happen between good acquaintances, but taking the time to understand sexual partners before putting ourselves in sexual situations definitely cuts down the possibility of getting hurt.

If that sounds too harsh, get over it; it’s the truth… and can incidentally protect women from rape or even dealing with the aftermath of “regretted activities.” In which case, it seems well worth hurting a few feelings.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Gisele Bundchen and Other Sex Objects Walk the Runway for… Ummm… Feminism?

Trolling through Yahoo! articles this morning, I came across a matching headline and pic that made it seem like Gisele Bundchen and a bunch of other models took to the streets – signs and all – to protest the mistreatment of women.

Considering how much these anorexic and classless women have done to encourage their own gender being objectified, I had to click that.

(Rather like ‘tap that,’ only less disrespectful.)

Sure enough, the models in question weren’t spontaneously up in arms about how society – their industry included – tells women they’re only as good as they look. Nope. This was business as usual, and Gisele et al were working the runway with the same dedication they’d take if they were wearing bras, thongs and peacock feathers.

The event wasn’t about feminism. It was about paychecks. And while I’m an unashamed capitalist who values paychecks, that money means nothing if it isn’t backed by dignity and truth.

Fortunately, most of the Yahoo! readers weren’t fooled by a bunch of sex objects saying one thing and doing another. In fact, their comments were so good, I have to share a few.

“Janine” wrote: “So an industry that puts women on display, tells them what to wear, how to wear it & how to look to be accepted is staging a feminist protest… Sounds about right for this day and age. I really don’t think anyone after 1985 has a concept of the history of this country or the actual ‘fights’ that went on to achieve the rights and freedoms we have today, and I may be giving too much credit with that year…”

“Only in America” complained: “And these stick figures… are supposed to represent the strong females of this country?” He goes on to describe a real “strong woman,” his mom, who paid for her own college education, took care of her family, respected herself and treated others in the same manner.

And “JasonP” added: “feminine protest by women who (for a living) are objectified. Utterly ridiculous. Skip the runway and be a teacher, doctor, police officer [or] anything you wanted to be. Instead you promote only sexuality. Society needs doctors, police [and] teachers, we definitely do not need runway models.”

Oh yeah, and the outfits being peddled are ugly anyway. You couldn’t pay me to wear them.

Too bad for the designers in question, I have a mind of my own.