This time last year:
Sure, she’s loud-mouthed, obnoxious, a liar, destructive, manipulative, and all sorts of other things. But, I must say, that’s why she grew on me.
…sbg wondered how precisely letting women become bishops would be the end of the world:
Except why? Why should allowing a woman to pursue her own vocation for her god be such a terrible, forbidden thing? (Some conservatives are still angry the Episcopal church allows female priests…) Why should this election be an ssue at all? The persons responsible for her election surely voted based on skill, experience and confidence in her ability to lead, and her gender plays no part in that nor does it impact her ability to lead; she’s already proven herself, hasn’t she, in her past positions and performances in them? Just like any man has, just like the men she was a candidate with.
This was brought up in one of my units, that if Madonna was a man, she’d be remembered as a ground-breaker and thought-provoker, in the same way Prince and (child molestation accusations aside) Michael Jackson are. But, you know, only men are allowed to be ground-breaking and thought-provoking; when women do it, they’re out-of-line sluts trying to draw attention away from the fact they have no talent beyond shit-stirring.
My guess? She went through all the normal embarrassment girls experience when their breasts are the first things people see on them, and she’s overcome her embarrassment by embracing "the girls". But all the hosts care about is calling less attention to her chest. They’re not looking at the whole woman: like everyone else, they’re obsessed with the twins, and treating them as something to be ashamed of. It’s no wonder Jennifer is resistant to their ideas. These alleged pros are as infantile as everyone else. [Note: "embarrassment" is how a lot of my friends with large breasts have described how people’s leering and innuendoes made them feel. I realize it may not apply to every large-breasted woman’s experience – sorry for generalizing.]