What is interesting is the way people are judged on looks and how some seem to welcome it. I know my children are aware of how attractive people are, though my daughter does her best to refuse to admit it.
Now to the story of the day, which is that a female lawyer accepted a connection on LinkedIn who then send an interesting e-mail, which lets face it is creepy and considering the issues with grammar, may have been sent when drunk, or high. I think that her response was interesting, not one I would have sent, but then I am not the subject of a creepy e-mail, and posting the message and response on Twitter was interesting as well. However, the response of the Daily Malicious was very interesting. The paper that backed fascism before the second world war referred to feminists who backed her stance as Nazi's! Pot, kettle and black comes to mind. Not content with this, it decides to refer to her not as a human rights lawyer, but has a glam lawyer. This stance towards women is not just limited to women over the age of 16, but in fact also takes place to children who happen to be female.
Considering its views on Charlotte Proudman and how she would like to be judged on her ability not her looks, I presume it backs Donald Trump when he slates the way Carly Fiorina, a female GOP Presidential hopeful, looks, a charge he does not seem to have made against a man, yet. My daughter gets annoyed when people are judged on looks, she hates it when girls in her class sometimes try to charm their way out of things, and when watching Transformers three, practically boiled over at the way Carly Spencer played by Rosie Huntington-Whiteley used her looks to placate men.
Anyway sorry about my rant, onto chess. Another tournament completed with me finishing joint last. Still it is the taking part that counts!
