Okay, so I always get these e-mails from Feminist groups and magazines and what have yous because I like to keep up to date on things and it’s a lot easier for blog material to get sent to me than it is to go and look for some. AH ha. Right, so today I get an e-mail and these feminists are down right pissed off.
The Washington Post ran an article on Hilary Clinton’s cleavage.
Of course the feminists want us all to e-mail the post and sign petitions to let the post know that this sort of thing isn’t acceptable, and they’re right. It’s not acceptable at all, it’s down right disgusting and degrading. …But also hilarious.
She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.
It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative — aesthetically speaking — environment of Congress.
Oh it was not startling you dinkus. They’re BOOBS.
After all, it wasn’t until the early ’90s that women were even allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor.
…Okay, okay. And it wasn’t until the 50’s that they could vote so really - should they already be trying to run for president? Trying to GET votes??? I think not.
Throughout Clinton’s time as first lady, she wore clothes that were feminine and stately. But sexiness was not part of the image.
Vut are you talking about? Clinton is damn sexy…
