Ms. Brown,

I am truly disappointed in your recent article titled, “Democrats’ post-election temper-tantrums continue.” Though I gritted my teeth through your first sentence, I was right back with you throughout the next few paragraphs. You could have had me on your side... that is until you started your rant on the “size” of the crowd at the Women’s March.

Let me back up a bit. You see, I, too, am over hearing the nagging about our new president (from both women AND men). I don’t agree with those anarchists chucking bricks, shattering glass, igniting fires nor destroying property. That clearly makes no sense. Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, she didn’t trash the bus – we need to learn the difference. Whether or not I like President Trump is neither here nor there at this point – he is our leader. And wanting him to fail is like wanting the pilot to crash the plane upon which we are ALL flying.

Again, my issue with your article is when you begin to discuss the Women’s March. You could have made a valid point by just stating that you didn’t understand what the women were marching for (Google “To Christy on Facebook, who doesn’t need the Women’s March” by Susan Sheffloe Speer). You could have mentioned the ridiculous hats and the “man-hating” signs and even the number of maxi pads that were wasted that day – there were plenty of other absurd issues to discuss. But instead, you thought it was best to attack the size of the women who marched. And, here is where you began to lose the importance of your point.

You briefly mentioned some of the awful things Madonna and Ashley Judd said. You pointed out Trump’s colorful past and Hillary’s bad choices of clients. But then, you tried to make a witty comment by saying, “There is a big difference between crowd numbers and crowd size.” And you, as a female, couldn’t help but notice the size of some of the marchers. But you were just warming up here. You continued by foolishly bringing up Rep. Hank Johnson “lamenting in 2010 the whole island of Guam might tip over due to overpopulation,” and followed that up with “Someone might want to check the structural integrity of the bridges used during the marches.” Please explain to me what one has to do with the other? Is that your attempt at being funny? Or, hurtful? The rest of your article was clearly fat-shaming the women who were there, and I will save us all from reciting those truly horrible comments. Hey, how about I put you in touch with the “Dear Fat People” YouTube star, Nicole Arbour so y’all can go after fat people together? Or, were you trying to say only fat women marched and basically, because they are fat, their reasons for the march aren’t legit. Or, was it possibly that the march was ridiculous in itself because only fat women marched? I’m confused. Your stance against the Women’s March was lost and replaced with hurtful and derogatory remarks about women.

Let me be clear – no matter if you believe in the march or not, what size a woman is does not determine whether or not her reason for marching is legitimate. According to the International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, the average size of a woman is now 16. This means when you watch a “women’s” march, or even walk into a theater, grocery store, carnival... any place that’s populated, more than likely, you will see MORE AVERAGE-SIZED women there than your size 2. Size 16 is the majority now. Your article would have convinced me more if you would have stuck with any point, like the temper-tantrums (which I thought was your original point), rather than attacking the size of the women marching.

And yes, laying off those chocolate bars like you do when your size 2 clothes don’t fit would be a good idea, but then again, that would make us like you. And, chocolate is proven to make you happy – which is probably why you just attacked your own gender instead of sticking to a point and attacking the opposition. If you want to be a #notmymarch supporter, do it right.

Respectfully,

Jessica Duke