writing patterns

thanks for the tag @sznofthesticks!

rules: list the first line of your last 10 (posted) fics and see if there's a pattern!

better get a love

Carlos carefully folded the red construction paper in half, sliding a finger along the crease to make sure it was straight.

second strike

They’re just about done here; the yoga woman’s being loaded into the ambulance and the 126 is packing their things up into the firetruck.

Henry George Edward James Fox-Mountchristen-Windsor and Alex Claremont-Diaz Hate Weddings

Alex scowls when he sees the headline.

echoes

“Carlos? Hey, Carlos!”

and many more

“Here.”

a call

Alec leans back, crosess his legs, and puts one arm along the back of the couch. 

do you want to play a game?

Carlos picks the phone up on the second ring.

leftovers

“We’re here, sir.”

peace

There’s something in the room with him. 

forest for the trees

Iris’ front door is a dark green. 

large popcorn with a bag of m&ms

Nile imagines she’s in for a lot of firsts in this new life.

i have a 11 works posted and i didn't want my Old Guard fic to feel left out because i actually really love that fic.

idk what the verdict is. i've had a headache all day so im not really sure what the pattern is here. someone else tell me. although i didn't quite realize i started so many with quotes. i'm not a fan of things starting with quotes for some reason.

no pressure tagging: @lemonlyman-dotcom @lightningboltreader @carlos-in-glasses @kiwichaeng @cold-blooded-jelly-doughnut @welcometololaland @paperstorm

What the heck was that last chapter... 🫣

That friend or acquaintance of Elliot leaking information on social media about what's going on with y/n seems sus af. Lando seems vary, too. I'm curious if there's an explanation to this and whether Elliot will talk to her about it.

Then of course... her conversation with Elliot. Like what was even going on with them? 😅 Don't get me wrong, I still don't like the guy for various reasons, and it's a little weird how he's digging up all that stuff about her on the internet and now also by listening to f1 podcasts, using it in their convos, when she hasn't even told him herself. And the way he brought up the RB results and talking about Max obviously knowing nothing about f1, probs wasn't the best way to show some interest. But wow did she go off!!

The funny thing about it is that her first immediate answer sounds rather sweet with the 'arww' and the cute emoji and all of a sudden - bam! Writing a whole essay on how he should not talk about people she cares about. I'm sure he didn't even understand what it was he said that made her flip. 😅

I love how she's texting Max after that, blowing Elliot off and not even further explaining herself. 🤣

I think those multiple 'no's and the yes to a call is pretty spot on for Max after the day that he's had!

Does it only feel like this from the outside or do those race weekends and the results and headlines around it always play into your cards? 😅

CHAOS. That’s what that was lol

Look, people get a bit messy when there’s “fame” involved. Clout is a drug lol. Tbf as cute as it is that Lando is protective, I think he’s probably fallen prey to that. They will definitely need to talk about it though, because Y/N and definitely Max keep a small circle and wouldn’t want things leaking like that. Provided Elliot survives the weekend without getting blocked lol.

Tbf to Elliot it wasn’t a podcast, it was sports radio on his way home and he just paid attention to the f1 bit which he normally doesn’t. But yeah, he for sure has a bunch of information on her that she didn’t give him, some he searched for some he didn’t, and all of it is playing on his mind.

She was definitely mad from the start and lulling him into a false sense of security. I think she was giving him a second to see where he would go with it and then she was like nah can’t hold it in how dare he. Because what he said was so out of pocket. But then, it’s also typical of guys to do that - they think trashing something is how they sound informed. He stepped on a landmine though lol. Honestly if a man came at my best friend, who they’d never even met, and with the most ignorant and irrelevant opinion…I’d have picked up his call to give him an earful. Idk, was she too harsh on him? I think he was pretty rude tbh.

The real life results don’t play into my hands, I play into theirs haha. I watch/keep up with practices and then base the conversations around the results. Sometimes I get lucky like with that Helmut quote on Mick haha

I didn't follow any of the pre-release promotional materials; do you have a link to the showrunner(s) stating/implying that queerness is merely "subtextual" in the absence of literal sex? (Apologies if you've shared it before and I just wasn't paying attention.) Also, thank you for your prolific and thorough critiques. I'm a more casual book fan and was tentatively excited to see the show forge a new narrative path while still guided by the same lifeblood, if you will. But at this point, hmmmmmm

I don't recall him commenting on it being about literal sex, THAT WAS ME EDITORIALZING LMAO.

I haven't been able to stomach the entire SDCC panel but I know they talked about it in there, I kinda peeked around for a transcript but didn't find one. ANYONE FEEL FREE TO SHARE THE DIRECT QUOTES please I don't have the strength. There's a summary article here, though, which touches on the convo a little:

(Don't even ask me to start unpacking the Fiona Apple comment dude what?)

This article also talks about the SDCC panel and doesn't directly quote him but it sums up:

There's just been article after articleeeeee of people who didn't read the books or just watched the film or whatever and keep going WOWIE IT'S NOT SUBTEXT, GREAT JOB, when like ? It was never subtext lol. And that's not entirely the show's fault, how mainstream perceives it, but they've been running with that and taking credit for it.

Like there's just been tons of headlines and praise like this -

I think the show & RJ have also been pretty blurry with how often they claim they're not a remake of the movie and yet constantly make digs at the movie and even reference it often on the show itself. So I think sometimes they're commenting on the movie when they forget they've already told us they're not remaking the movie. =P

There's also this quote (I didn't screenshot bc there's an ad in the middle LOL!) but:

"It’s aggressive subtext in the first book, but by the time you read books eight and nine, it was the love affair of the century. Without spoiling too much, subtext becomes text in our show."

(Let's not point out that books 8 & 9 are ... *checks notes* Blood & Gold and Blackwood Farm. Okaaaaaay Rolin. 😪)

Also sorry by love affair of the century do you mean Lestat goes around and has adventures and uses everyone while Louis stays safely tucked away at Armand's house until he's needed, or? Sorry lmfao I'm so fucking. dghadgkjs.

That interview is full of nonsense that will make you want to scream if you're feeling brave.

Anyway I feel like, I've been obsessively watching the production unfold for the past year and I kept getting so many red flags like there's been so many odd comments and little sexist quips, the complete misunderstanding (or lack of fucks) about what Claudia is supposed to mean in the story, etc. I just keep getting aggressive CISHET MAN vibes from this team and the lens they read VC through.

And yknow what, fair whatever I guess, we all read different versions of the same book and they're the ones that got to make it. But idk I like VC for the dark elegant spooky existential angst, I didn't need it to be gritty and open up with shit jokes. And five episodes in I didn't need it to use outdated, dangerous rape tropes and I also don't need it to oversell the domestic abuse. (Hint: Lestat was already abusive as fuck from the moment we met him, don't oversell!)

It's an okay show lmao. It's not recognizable as VC at all except that it recycles the names. None of the characters have been accurate so far. Even Lestat, where Sam Reid is doing so many fun things with his delivery and mannerisms that almost seem like Lestat, is just so fucking OOC and a caricature and just really lacks the depth and nuance and sensitivity of who he is in the books.

If you can turn your brain off and not look at it as VC there's some fun moments, but it's also full of continuity errors and just plot holes and bad writing when you look too close, so don't try to analyze it too hard or you'll have a bad time lol. Even the stuff that's really interesting and that they get right, they tend to lose interest in and drop, or they mix it into so much vampire soap opera shenanigans that it's hard to walk away knowing what the episode is actually about. It's just. Woof!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am going to comic con tomorrow and you follow DC comics closer than I do. Jim Lee has a panel and I am only familiar with some of his art. Do you know anything about him as publisher?

Hello anon! I hope you enjoy Comic Con!! I've never been and I'm so jealous. I hope I saw this when you sent it, because Tumblr continues to be a hot mess.

Idk how helpful I can be, I'm not fond of Jim Lee in any sort of creative control position tbh. He's done some wildly interesting stuff as an artist, including Hush, some bits of Gotham Knight, and I used to follow WildC.A.T.s way back when, so it really isn't nice to have to say that he should have stayed in his lane. But. He really should have.

Short summary of his career as a publisher/creative editor because I don't know how much you know: Image Comics was formed in 1992 and Jim Lee joined them to create WildStorm. Lee then sold it to DC in 1998 but continued to exert some amount of editorial control from time to time. God knows how much or when, because he is all over the place with it. (This is a theme with him. He was supposed to collab with Grant Morrison on WildC.A.T.s in this period but that fizzled out I guess?) You might have read Warren Ellis' The Authority, which was one of my absolute favorites, and was one of the few good things to come from this.

Now, in 2010, when DiDio took charge, Jim Lee was named co-publisher with him. At the same time, Wildstorm got shelved. And after that is when shit hit the fan imo.

I've got two major issues with him, and one minor gripe which I am putting under a readmore bc no one wants that naked on their dash lmao.

Major Issue 1. The New 52. I'm not going to go on a rant here, because we all have our own opinions about the New 52, and it was what it was. The thing is, Dan DiDio keeps getting blamed for it (rightfully, the abusive, predator-shielding asshole) but Jim Lee was also there!! Because DiDio was a loudmouth who kept giving his opinions whether or not they were asked for, everyone forgets that this was Jim Lee's idea too. And when Johns was booted in 2018, he was Chief Creative Officer too. Either he was fully onboard and had no fucking clue that they at least should tell the writers what backstory their characters have, or he was just.... MIA. Too busy dealing with Batpenis, maybe.

In the last 2 years since Jim Lee got complete creative control, sales of DC stuff have tanked, continuities now make no sense, and I don't read Green Lantern but from what I've heard, they still haven't recovered entirely from the Geoff Johns/DiDio/Jim Lee era. The usual suspects blame 'wokeness' for it, but that's absolute nonsense. I will not get into what I think the real problems are, but there we go. Jim

Major Issue 2: DC killed WildStorm. I don't know if they intended to, or whether they never bothered reading a single comic before buying it up and trying to grab Alan Moore any way they could. I'm just going to quote Bleeding Cool's summary from 2010 here:

Minor Gripe: He keeps trying to shove together WildStorm and DC legacy characters. It doesn't work, they don't need to share an universe, and if this is what he wanted to do, why did he try to go for creator-owned comics in the first place. The New 52 reboot of backstories was the worst in many ways, but making WildC.A.T.s characters share the same universe as the actual Justice League was........... A Choice.

Mark Millar would grab news headlines around the world and cause Paul Levitz to personally intervene, changing dialogue and finished art because they offended his sensibilities. It would cost editor John Layman his job. Mark left for Marvel and went exclusive. He would not write for DC or Wildstorm again.

Alan Moore wrote a number of books for Wildstorm, including WildCATS and then his ABC line. DC just managed to keep Moore on board by the skin of their teeth when buying the company, and indeed he would do his first work for hire for DC in ages on the Albion book as a result. However conflict, especially over V For Vendetta and League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen with Paul Levitz would see him leave, taking League with him. It would cost editor Scott Dunbier his job. Moore would not write for DC or Wildstorm again.

Hiii!

I sure missed the scene of chaos that Anthony's declaration to get married caused at the club! This cast would have acted the hell out of it 🤣 The show Bridgerton brothers exude such suave, rakish with that absolute chaotic energy, I always look forward to their scenes! I am so looking forward to the Romney Hall scene! Lmao!!!! I hope George fits in well with the trio.

I clearly had too much time on my hand because I re-watched to find out clues for the next season couple/s. Haven't found an answer! 😅 Do you think CVD leaving will affect the dynamic/tempo of the show? Both seasons knocked it out of the park in their own way. Your thoughts on the next season?

HIIII! Thank you so much for coming to chat with me about this, YOU'RE MY FAAAAVE. LMFSKSK YES, I ALSO MISSED THE CHAOTIC NATURE OF KATE AND ANTHONY'S ENGAGEMENT FROM THE BOOK. It would've been so AMAZING to see it with the actors they have given the energy they give off in their big group scenes. As a big philoise book fan I really do have to insist and hope that the Romney Hall squad scene makes it in when we get to it. That scene has so much chaos that I wouldn't even know where to begin, lmaooo. I have no doubts he will! Gregory already looked so amused in the carriage scene during 2x01 when Benedict was teasing Anthony ahead of the season.

I answered this the other day but I honestly can't tell who goes next. The word around is that they've swapped the order of benophie and polin. Well perhaps not the word around, but it's the guess most people have as of currently. I quote tweeted an interview snippet from shonda here during premiere week where she said they're definitely following the eight romances of the books but that they're not necessarily going in order. And I can't tell if that means just simply switching the order around or a combination plan??? Because I will say that some plots are going to have to be combined during other headlined seasons.

In my opinion, they did give a lot of Benedict insight this season, they did what I consider to be substantial groundwork for his character. But I'd argue they did equally as much with Colin and Penelope and so I'm just not sure??? Pushing Polin up causes quite a few issues, I feel like??? Idk, for me, Penelope and Colin have the potential to have one of the most interesting seasons, not only on their plot alone but their season would arguably have to use philoise and francesca as the side plots. Those three books significantly overlap. And so I guess what I can't quite settle on is what kind of chaos switching the order causes, because from where I'm sitting---a lot.

As for CVD, I will say a lot of aspects were so, so great but I have beef with quite a few as well. I don't like how little attention sisterhood gets in this show. I have quite the issue with certain writing aspects for Eloise. Why such a disconnect of the Kate/Edwina bond from the book? That one just doesn't add up to me, I don't get it. The meh nature of the sideplots to fill the spaces when we only got a small handful of book scenes??? I loved S2 ten times more than S1 but I without a doubt had more irritated sentiments at the writing this season than the last. Some of CVD's interviews post-season have not passed the vibe check either so I'm not too sad to see him go as of currently, tbh.

What are your thoughts????

You've spent a lot of time arguing with people over Lewis and Max supposedly saying the same thing so Max shouldn't be getting any heat. But he's getting heat because of his bad joke. One Lewis and several F1 people were uncomfortable with. I'm not sure why you're using Shaw (who's a Max fan) or misinterpreting Lewis as an excuse when you could just say, wow, Max sure says dumb stuff and leave it. Using misinformation to seem right? Disappointing from you when you seemed smart in past posts.

Whoa buddy, what misinformation? That’s a big word to be throwing around without anything specific.

Anyway, I wasn’t saying that Max shouldn’t be getting criticism, I was saying it was hypocritical to *only* criticize him while praising Lewis for supposedly saying something different. 

That was 100% the issue at hand. Max wasn’t getting criticized because of a “bad joke”, he was getting criticized for the content of his answer, for saying that he didn’t believe a driver should be able to opt out of continuing a race like Sunday’s.

I'm not sure why you're using Shaw (who's a Max fan) or misinterpreting Lewis as an excuse when you could just say, wow, Max sure says dumb stuff and leave it. Using misinformation to seem right?

I’ll be sure to let Edd Straw (I’m assuming that’s who you meant?) know that he can rub out silly things like “editor-in-chief of Autosport” from his CV and simply put in “Max fan” instead.

He took part in the press conference in question and then wrote an article about it, why wouldn’t it be extremely relevant that he explicitly said that the answers Max and Lewis gave were the same in substance but not style?

We’ve seen that Lewis is perfectly happy to correct inaccuracies in the media when reporters misrepresent something he said, I can’t imagine his press officer missed such a prominent article. 

But the only reason people started arguing about Lewis’ answer vs Max’s was because it was a classic case of people twisting themselves into knots when the fun of bashing someone they dislike is complicated when the zoom-out reveals that someone they like said it first.

It’s exactly like that situation after Baku 2017 when that quote of Lewis saying that if Vettel “wants to prove that he’s a man, I think he should do it out of the car face to face” spread like wildfire and buckets of ink were spilled on castigating Lewis for his ‘toxic masculinity’.

I mean, that quote made headlines in every mainstream outlet, not just the F1 press and fans on social media.

Except, as it later emerged, the language he used was simply echoing Vettel’s own statements about racing as men to explain away his decision to swerve into Lewis under the safety car as a response to his (incorrect) feeling that Lewis was brake-checking him.

Vettel’s words were put to Lewis in an interview and that’s what provoked his response. Yet it was only Lewis’ response that got those headlines and made all that buzz, and fans had a grand old time criticizing Lewis and Lewis alone.

Like now, ultimately both Lewis and Seb used the same sort of heavily criticized language and displayed similar attitudes.

Like now, only one of them found their words spread and got criticized, in part because just like Max, Lewis’ phrasing was more extreme and delivered far punchier headlines.

And just like now - when people pointed out that if Lewis was getting criticized for this supposed toxic masculinity then why not dish some of that criticism out to Seb too, the response was to try to claim that actually what they said wasn’t the same and shouldn’t be put in the same category etc etc.

What Max said in that press conference was pure gold to those who don’t like him and they gleefully seized on the opportunity to talk at length about how he was a sociopath who lacked any empathy for not thinking drivers should have the chance to opt out after seeing something shocking.

Which is perfectly fine, that’s a valid opinion. 

What drives me up the wall is that when it emerged that Lewis also didn’t believe that they should have that option somehow not only are the standards completely different, people refuse to accept that the bottom line of both their answers is the same.

Idk, I mean, I understand why that’s the case. Once you’ve said something so extreme about Max it’s hard to either put Lewis in the same category or climb down from that oh so very high horse.

I'm not trying to start a fight or anything because I hate Yoko too, but like the anon said, she uses his name for fame and headlines. How do we know that she's not lying about the tape from John when he's calling Paul in a pleading way... that he thought that everyone was bisexual including himself... How do we know for sure that the witch isn't lying her ass off just for headlines ? I can't trust her, so idk

I see where you’re coming from , it all has to do with portraying a better image for her . Many people whine about her being known for her connection to John and not because of her art ( and at some point she did too , she told people around her she was tired of the Lennon name and living in his shadow ) but they don’t realize that this is what she wanted . She wants to be linked to the Beatles and to John and she often mixed her personal life with her art ( The Two Virgins Album , the Wedding Album , the baby’s heartbeat in the song etc ). That’s why she’s so possessive over the Lennon name and always thought of Paul as a threat . I don’t think she would imply a romantic relationship between them for the headlines because she has nothing to gain from it ( and i don’t think she would like the idea of another person being John’s romantic and creative partner ) . The thing about that quote is that it’s from the biography by Philip Norman and she later denied saying these things . Norman was shocked that she would take back everything she said . It makes me think that maybe she did get carried away and later regretted it or that Norman paraphrased her words and unfortunately we can’t know for sure . I don’t think she lied about the tape, either Norman did ( idk why ? ) or she regretted talking about it . As for the bisexuality thing : I don’t know why she said it and I’m not sure I even agree with her saying it . It’s believable because it’s supported by many people around him but at the same time I don’t know why she felt the need to share it with the public . Maybe it’s for shock value , maybe it’s because other people have said it and she felt the need to do it too , maybe it’s indeed for making headlines and benefiting from it . I believe it because it’s supported by other evidence , not because she said it.

I saw that too about Chris Pratt and was ready to roll my eyes, turns out he just said basically he loved them but there should have been more movies first dedicated to each character so you got to know them more? Part of his quote was literally "I have to give the characters the stories and plots they deserve next time" so seems like a misleading clickbait-y headline? I'm relieved though, so unnecessary

See, I’ll admit it did seem clickbait-y to me, I’ve just grown so cynical towards Marvel and everyone involved with it lately that I wouldn’t have been surprised if they let their actors openly shit-talk DC movies in their interviews.

Idk, I’m still kind of annoyed even now that I know exactly what he said? Because you shouldn’t NEED to make 80 movies setting up your characters for people to understand one movie, that’s where I think Suicide Squad (and hell, even BVS to an extent) succeeded where Avengers failed, in my opinion. SS did an amazing job introducing each character and setting them up through the means of a succinct montage and then got on with the movie and I think it worked BEAUTIFULLY. 

Believe me, I would love to have solo movies about each individual member of the Squad, but here’s the thing, I don’t think it’s necessary when the Squad movie on its own did so well by each of them and still made me fall in love with every single one of them, regardless of how much screentime they had, without having to show each one going off on their own adventure beforehand. And it’s the BEGINNING OF A FRANCHISE, they’ll have more room to explore the characters in the sequels anyway.

I think Pratt is clearly biased considering he’s in Marvel movies, no matter how well-intentioned his statement was. And the Squad movie already exists (and is perfect the way it is) so it’s not like they can go back in time and make more movies to set it up even if they wanted to. Hell, we’re already getting a Deadshot movie and a Gotham City Sirens movie, neither of which would have happened if SS hadn’t happened and made a shitton of money.

I’m also super confused by the wording of the quote, considering Pratt isn’t involved with SS whatsoever??? Also nobody HAS to do anything just because you say so, Pratt. Stay in your lane.

I don’t know. I appreciate you clearing things up, I’m just super protective of this movie because it came at a time when I needed it most and now it’s everything to me and the fact that so many people hate on it for no good reason makes me SO ANGRY. 

Normally I wouldn’t give in to all the “Marvel vs. DC” nonsense in the first place but anyone can see that the quality of Marvel’s movies, shows, and comics have taken a huge nosedive ever since AOU, and DC has hit it out of the park with all their movies so far, again, in my opinion, and are continuing to do so. The way I like to describe it is Marvel is my ex-spouse and we’re going through a messy divorce and I’m living with DC currently, I just occasionally visit Marvel to check on the kids.

But anyway, I’ve rambled enough, I didn’t mean for this to turn into a speech, so I’ll leave it at that.

A journey (kind of rant ish?)

cw: sexy song lyrics, helicopter parents, sl*t shaming, specifically of a child who doesn't know what's going on

Okay so I'm actually at the point now where I think TikTok is pretty alright. It had some immediate detractors and that kind of rubbed off on me but for the most part it's come to be its own thing. So I found a TikTok compilation a little bit ago, which meant basically finding vines that I'd never seen before, just under a different name.

The very first one (here's the compilation btw)

Was a very specific joke about a song from the early-mid 2010's which meant I for sure listened to it a lot when it was popular. Turns out it was Hey Mama by David Guetta, and the line (yes I do the cooking, yes I do the cleaning, plus I keep the nana real sweet for your eating) was from Nicki Minaj. Standard 2014 faire.

(btw despite everything the song David Guetta later did with Nicki, Turn me On, is legit good and I have no clue why but it's easily one of my favorite songs by Guetta and that includes everything he did with Sia. But only if you go with the interpretation that the song is about a robot or alien. Or I have shit taste. Anyway not important).

So I forgot what the song was because it's been 5 years since I've thought about it (holy shit), so I looked up the lyric in question. In the process I found this amazing headline (the actual article sucks).

"what do I do when my four year old thinks a song about keeping your genitals tidy for visitors is a ditty about bananas?"

Why did I cry laughing at this headline? Was it because of how absolutely pure that is on the part of the kid? Was it because "for visitors"? Was it the mental image of a bunch of adults being like "oh okay so we have to listen to this for a while"? Nobody will know.

The actual article is not worth your time though. It's mostly this woman gasping and grabbing at pearls because her kid has misinterpreted lyrics that she wouldn't know the meaning of anyway and considering it a moral outcry, or even worse a failing on the kid's part? With great quotes such as:

"Dance music behemoth David Guetta’s “Hey Mama,” featuring the pornographic vocal stylings of Nicki Minaj, is decidedly not a song about motherhood. Actually, it might be a song about unintended eventual motherhood, but let’s leave that pee stick aside for now." (I can *smell* the tone behind the word "pornographic" there. Also, ew)

"The current speed of precocity is not a concern for [her husband I think] – even when he is reminded that as a child in the mid-1970s, he was still listening to “Purple People Eater” and tracks about meatballs when he was more than twice Bea’s age." (She doesn't know what it's actually about? You don't have to tell her - though frankly I'm one of those people who thinks that things like that should be normalized so shame doesn't happen later on - but it's not that much of a problem when she doesn't actually know)

"Mike and I had our children later than most of our friends. They all have nine- or 10-year-olds; some even have teenagers. When those kids happen to be girls, the main project, from what I can see, seems to be holding them back from the full catastrophe of adulthood, against the cultural tide that will have every female twerking and wearing plastic princess heels before they’ve learned to use a fork properly. When I recently asked a family member what I should buy his eight-year-old daughter for her birthday, he sighed and said, “She likes any clothes that look like they are for a very small prostitute.”" (there's been a lot of people online giving really different, very good takes about the way that kids, especially young girls, are dressed, but idk am I the only one who sees a problem with the people who respond to their kids reacting to what they consider to be mature media (and the kiddo sees as just,, what's popular) by /not/ telling them what's up with it? Kids are very understanding if you talk to them like humans, and if you tell them why you don't want them doing x thing, they'll probably be fine unless you demand or they really had their heart set. Shaming behind their back because they're just wanting to follow trends and don't know what any of it means is not okay. There's a full musical about why shaming instead of educating is such a bad thing, all parents should know the plot of Spring Awakening.) (Also I didn't know that heels were the sl*tty option? I just thought that it was a thing for women to wear for some reason that I never understand and for little girls to try on because they like pretending they're older. And they still don't know why you think this is a bad thing.)

This didn't mean to be a rant, I just realized that an article I died at was actually advocating for not getting what little girls like while also shaming them for what they like for, as far as they can see, no reason.