So you choose to believe the motive assigned by the people who didn’t wear them?
Don’t own any.
Yes. And why you choose to believe the side you did.
Just one more example of the lib agenda to feminize real men in action!
That said, the Republican congress critters DID look fabulous in their pearls.
2 Likes
Let’s put it this way, it very well may have been some homage to another organization known for wearing pearls who were opposed to gun control. They weren’t there at the moment. But these guys never stated that at the time, all the while also wearing lots of NRA swag.
So, for optics sake, it could very well be interpreted as a slam against the people who were actually there at the moment, women who were calling for gun reforms. It would seem less likely they would be for someone not even there. Now it’s a darn good excuse to use when you’re being called out on it. If that is what really happened, why not say something at the outset as to why grown ass men are wearing pearl necklaces? Maybe they wanted the benefit of insulting someone without the consequences of doing it.
But if you’re a man you don’t hide behind someone’s skirt, you face the music. You say “Yeah, I wore those because I think these folks are clutching pearls one something they aren’t educated in” and leave it at that. What they did is either painfully ham handed with no concept of “optics” or outright cowardice.
2 Likes
People are going to interpret it the way that fits their agenda.
That’s all this thread is really about. It’s full of “seemingly” and “interpretation” and “so-what-you’re-saying-is…” And then others piling onto those strawmen and stoking each other’s outrage.
Unless they didn’t wear them for that reason.
Shannon Watts is known trash. I would have worn them like Mardis Gras beads in her face.
I’m not. They said why they wore them.
Since that’s not a typical thing for a man to wear, why not state at the outset why you’re wearing them, so as to not call undue attention or risk misinterpretation?
Simple. They wanted to insult but didn’t have the stones to face their ire.
2 Likes
At the time? Or later on?
That’s your interpretation.
When asked. Or rather when the shrieking started.
That’s an astounding example of gender bias. Check your privilege cis.
If Shannon Watts had been where she lives instead of sticking her nose into Homogeneous Hampshire business as Bloomberg’s errand girl, maybe she wouldn’t have seen the trigger.
So if a male wants to dress in a dress and go to a meeting, he should announce why?
How about a female in a tux?
I thought we were past all that?
Ahh so the time for serious discussion has passed. Fair enough, this is why I tend to stray from gun threads. Enjoy the discussion with others.
Ta.
1 Like
The latter. And, surprisingly, I can’t use the entirely justified synonym for “kitties” to register my disgust.
Let us all remember at the next shooting, bombing, drive into crowds…“thoughts & prayers” “thoughts & prayers”.
“thoughts & prayers” next time tragedy touches you.
Not at all.
“Serious discussion”? Over this? You must be joking.
Watts got the vapors. Good day.
