Today's Washington Post has a story that reconsiders Martha Washington based on her appearance.
Yes, her appearance. That's a reconsideration?
The writer says the previous consensus was that she was frumpy and dull based on portraits that show her over 50 and overweight, which they interpret to mean frumpy, dull and asexual. But if you reverse-age her portrait and look at her wedding shoes (the manolo blahniks of her time), she is ...hot!
Where do we begin to count the ways this is wrong?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sGHrP97L3sDvP9zr0LOysUX8KhSP3piFOw1HB8sIKEbpBinc1VUsNRDsa1oVUcm9l7RCXIoMhwahtAQqFd0P0zaRQb6JrtiCO5f_cLzpb-qTlJjjUecAil1WhngDu9pRk6LLqGWAr5k0FC_8rIrn7O=s0-d)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment