The Truth About Consequences

 

Every choice we make has it's own consequences.  In Economics this concept is called buyer's remorse. The idea is that when you spend your money on a particular item, you cannot simultaneously spend that same money on something else.  The consequence of the choice is that you must be content with the decision you made about how to spend your money.  Sometimes, depending on the vendor, you may be able to return the item and get your money back. When you are paying for a service, or if the goods are consumable, often the choice is irrevocable.

In the same sense, every one of our decisions about our family dynamic come with their own consequences.  Our decision to have a single income stream creates a consequence of having less income.  This may not be much of a consequence if the primary income provider has a high paying job.  But if the primary income provider is barely covering essential bills, that consequence may cause us to question the wisdom of our decision.  

If we choose for both parents to pursue careers, we will have a higher income, but we will have less time to handle household upkeep and build relationship with our children.  If the single income stream was making it difficult to pay our bills, the second income stream may be necessary, but that does not automatically erase the impact of our lack of time for our children, and the stress created by having to juggle family bonding time with household management. 

If our dual income stream is higher, we may be able to outsource some of the household management. We could hire a cleaning service, or pay for lawn maintenance. But we still have a limited number of waking hours that we can spend with our children, and the majority of those hours will be spent keeping up with school activities.  

The choices don't end there.  If we decide to put the children in private school, we may not have a choice about that second income, as the price for private education is astronomical even with sibling discounts and scholarships.  If our income is too high, we may not even qualify for scholarships, and with four children to enroll, we're looking at a pretty stiff consequence for the decision to utilize private school.

  

We may decide to enroll them in public school.  After all, our taxes pay for public education whether we use it or not.  A second income stream may not be necessary since the only real cost to us would be for uniforms and school supplies.  However, we would have to pay the consequence of our children being exposed to information we may not agree with.  Even if we agreed with everything they are taught, we would have very little time for family bonding. By the time they get home from school and do their homework, there is little time left in the evenings to just be a family.  Then, there's the pressure to participate in extra curricular activities that uses up even more valuable time.  

Personally, we chose to homeschool our children.  The consequence of this decision was that I have never been available to bring in a second income stream.  But our family has a very close bond, and our children love Jesus. My husband has been a very good provider and we haven't struggled very much financially.  I've never really been frustrated by the consequences of our decision.

Some consequences are immediate. If I eat a snack while I'm making dinner, I won't be hungry when I sit down to eat.  Some consequences may take years to show up.  Anyone who's listened to "Cat's in the Cradle" by Harry Chapin can attest to the long term effects of prioritizing a career over time spend with family.  Some consequences are negligible.  Deciding to pay a few cents extra for milk at my local Publix instead of driving a bit farther to pick it up at Aldi isn't really going to impact my finances.  Some consequences are catastrophic.  Allowing someone to spend time alone with my child who may end up molesting them would be devastating for everyone for years.    

What are the consequences of the decisions you've made? Are you satisfied with your decisions enough to be at peace with your consequences?  What are some consequences you may not feel for a while?  What are some decisions you are confident about?  What is a decision you've made in the past that you wish you had never made? 

God has promised to work every circumstance for our good when we are connected to Him. This should bring peace to our minds as we consider decisions we've made in the past that came with regrettable consequences. Sometimes the consequences we are facing are due to the decisions other people have made without our consent.  God can still use those consequences for our benefit as long as we are connected to Him.    

God also told us to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Even if we've made bad decisions in the past, we can determine to try to make the best decisions for our future.  The best way to ensure we are making the best decisions with the least damaging consequences is three-fold.  First, we can surround ourselves with godly advisors.  These are people who have been in the faith longer, or even those who have lived through similar circumstances and have come out on the other side with valuable experience. Second, we can utilize the guidebook God has given us.  The Bible is invaluable when it comes to providing directions.  It is profitable for so many aspects of decision making, and comes with a guarantee that it will help us become the best version of ourselves as we follow it's direction.  Finally, we must strive to develop our ability to hear the voice of our Creator as he communicates with us.  If we do not ignore those "gut feelings" we get they can turn into some powerful communications for our safety and the safety of our families. 

Who's Killing Education?

For years I've been hearing that the federal government is cutting education spending. In the last four years I've heard it shouted from the mountaintops of social media that Trump was going to destroy public education as we know it. His decision to position Betsy DeVos in the role of Secretary of Education came with great weeping and gnashing of teeth. The social media couch prophets foretold the end of decent education in America, and the national media largely threw sound bites of her own words back into her face as soon as there was audio to capture her verbiage.

 Most recently, with the insurrection and uprising of anarchists in the land of the marginally free, and the home of the internet brave, talk of defunding police has brought up comparisons in the twitter-sphere with the education system. So, once again, I took to the internet to do some research. I wanted to know, first, if the federal government was actually decreasing funding to education. Second, I wanted to know if Trump was responsible for this defunding. Third, if the federal budget hasn't changed, I wanted to know why people keep saying schools are being defunded. Finally, I wanted to know how DeVos factored into all this.

 Note: When I research these things I try to avoid news articles because if there's anything in this country that has proven over the years it isn't trustworthy, it's the news. It doesn't matter what your source is, someone will say your source spun the facts to fit their narrative. So I'm going to try not to cite national media sites.

  Is the Federal Government decreasing the education budget? 
According to the official government education website, it would appear that, not only has the federal government NOT decreased spending on education, they've increased it steadily for decades. Now, it's entirely possible that the increases haven't kept up with inflation. An economic expert would have to look that up, because I really don't want to rabbit trail here. But the numbers have steadily increased for quite some time.

In 1980 the combined federal budget for education was around $28 billion. In 2019, that figure has jumped to almost $147 billion. (source: https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf) 

Since I think in pictures, here's an idea of how spending has been going for quite some time. I only wish I had an image that included Trump's presidency.

 Is Trump at fault? 
Now that we know the federal budget has only increased during that time, it follows that it can't be Trump's fault that schools are defunded. In fact, We've had 7 different presidents since 1980. In that time, the only significant decreases were in 1983, 1994, 2012, and 2013. Significant increases happened in 2006 and 2009.

 If schools did a better job teaching kids about how government works, and if politically driven media didn't reinforce false narrative, the majority of our citizens would know that federal spending is a joint decision between the president and both houses of congress. So let's take a look at the years that stuck out.

 In 1983 Reagan was in the white house. Republicans led the senate, and Democrats led the House. According to the PDF it was the president's budget that significantly decreased, so it's pretty clear it was Reagan defunding public education. At that time the defense budget swelled significantly. This was also the year the National Commission on Excellence in Education report A Nation at Risk was published calling for Major reform. For more information on this check out this article: https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2386/School-Based-Decisionmaking.html.

 In 1994 Bill Clinton was president, and Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House. A renewed effort to push for more power at the local level happened during this year. The president's budget, as well as congress both cut federal spending this year.

 In 2012 and 2013 Barack Obama was president. Democrats controlled the Senate, and Republicans led the House. A lot of the budget decisions were impacted by the recession. This time it was Congress that decided to cut their education spending, not the president. During this time, states were also being incentivized to adopt Common Core curriculum changes. States that switched received more federal money. Both the president and Congress cut education spending even deeper in 2013. 

As for the rise in spending during 2006 and 2009. The initial report notes that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in major rebuilding of schools in the areas affected. 2009 marks the passage of the Recovery Act. During that time Congress technically cut their budget, but made up for it by funneling funds into the Recovery Act budget.

 Where is the defunding occuring?
States Provide Nearly Half of Public School Funding States and local counties have been primarily responsible for education funding since. To give an idea of the breakdown, at least since 2016, here is a pie chart. (source: https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/3-6-19sfpf1_300.png) This means that what the president or congress does really doesn’t affect your state. This also means that if your local school is facing budget cuts you’re gonna have to contact your school board and your state leadership to enact change.

 I find it interesting, and by that I mean slightly disturbing, that the majority of state education budgets go to colleges and universities, yet school debt is through the roof, and most college graduates have a difficult time finding jobs that will pay a living wage when they graduate.

 I’m not going to go state by state, but it seems, according to my research, next time you hear someone complain about Trump defunding public education, you really should tell them to look up their state and local education budget and see if their state legislators, Governor, and local school board can justify why the defunding is occurring.


What about DeVos?
Before I end this, let’s look at the “Dolores Umbridge” of the Trump Administration. You would think, based on the reaction from advocates of public school that her decisions were going to irreparably destroy public education at its foundation. After 3 years in her position, she has done almost ZERO of what everyone was worried she would do largely because none of her ideas have passed congressional votes. The fact that everyone was practically foaming at the mouth in their panic over her installation seems a bit melodramatic.

 That said, the primary object of their derision is her school choice initiatives that would steal tax dollars from schools that are already drastically underfunded.

 I have to admit, my mind was blown when I actually looked up her concept. First, let me remind you that under DeVos control, federal spending on education has only increased. In fact, in 2017 there was a record breaking $115 billion spent on education by congress. There are many who would say that these increases have only gone to bolster charter and private schools. However, since her initiative hasn’t even been passed, she can’t actually be faulted for anything.

 Additionally, based on my research above, even if the federal budget removed all support from education it would only impact state budgets by about 8%. It’s hard to make a case for school choice initiatives to “destroy” public education if only 8% of the budget is cut.

 That’s not all. The actual school choice initiative would barely touch the money the federal government is spending. The school choice initiative would be capped at $10 billion. The 2019 budget was already $11 billion higher than it was in 2018 without the initiative. If her initiative had been passed in 2019, and every cent of the funding was utilized, there would still be $1 billion more flowing to the states than the previous year. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/634

 In closing, I really wish people would do their research instead of blindly believing everything they hear. All my information was discovered with some quick research on Google. It’s not difficult, but you have to actually want to know what’s happening, rather than just wallowing in blind rage. I suppose if schools did a better job empowering the public to research effectively, it would be a lot harder for politicians to lie to us.

 Fun Fact, in the president’s budget proposal (aka DeVos proposal) there is a request for $19 billion in block grants for the disadvantaged. If your congress doesn’t all for this, you can’t blame Trump or by default, Devos. https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget21/summary/21summary.pdf

When the legends missed a few details

Ok, so I got into a discussion on Facebook about this image.  I changed a few details, but here's what I've come up with so far.

*  *  *  *  *

I didn't expect her to give it back.  Well, I didn't plan to drop it in the first place.  She was 14.  Naive, but kind.  And, pure as the crystal waters of the Irish sea.  I admit I was being irresponsible. I hadn't done the proper checks as I came ashore. 

In my defense, she was a tiny thing. She blended into the rocks along the shore, and wasn't visible from a cursory glance.  Her hoodie shrouded her face so she blended into the rocks, and the midsummer morning drizzle didn't help either.

So, there I was sitting cross legged with my coat draped over my shoulders enjoying the droplets as they hit my human face and traced their way over my cheekbones, waiting for sunrise to dry everything out.  I picked up a pebble and threw it.  Not just a toss, but really wound up and let it go.

It was a silly game my father taught me.  As my arms grew stronger I was able to sink it farther and farther at sea.  As my father aged his grasp grew more feeble and his distance ebbed.  I took a deep breath and let it out slowly trying not to miss him.  I wish I had known 7 years ago would be our last excursion.

I picked up a slightly larger stone and nearly grunted with effort, trying to throw all my sorrow into this one, and for one second I loosened my grasp and let the coat slip behind me.  I didn't care.  The stone whistled as it sailed and I couldn't even see where it made contact with the swirling tide.  I exhaled again and put my hand over the place where my human heart beat in my chest.

I'm not even sure when she picked it up.  I thought I would have a sense of my coat's whereabouts, a sort of sixth sense tying my nerve endings on my exposed skin to the hair follicles of my coat.  I was wrong, because suddenly she was just there, holding it out to me looking apologetic.

"Oops, dropped your coat."

I snatched it and threw it over my lap, hoping the darkness hid my naked form.  I realized at once I had overreacted.  Her mouth turned to the side and she ducked her head deeper into the hoodie.  She waved, crossed her arms and turned quickly away.

I struggled to my feet tripping slightly as my long limbs untangled themselves.  Bits of shell and sand dug between my toes and I nearly dropped my coat again in my haste to catch up to her.  I wrapped it around my waist and tied it off to the side willing it to stay put.  I put my hand on her arm and she twisted away and picked up her pace.

"Wait! No.  I just wanted to say thank you."

"You're welcome, ok?  No big!"

She ran up the porch steps of the nearby house and ducked in the glazed back door.

The sun was just coming over the edge of the horizon.  The rain had stopped sometime while we were, um, talking or whatever you'd call our exchange.  I waited a few moments watching the house, hoping to see her reappear.  I probably stayed there too long. I watched through the door as an older woman began to shuffle around the kitchen.

When I could smell the coffee and bacon coming out the chimney my stomach finally snapped me out of my daze.  I only had one day and I didn't plan to spend it staring at some random girl's back door.

Item #124

A whip cracks, slicing through the silence. Simultaneously a flock of birds recently resting on the branches of a birch tree flap furiously away. Three figures stand tensely across the space of the corral. The whip pulls a Colt revolver across the dusty, hoof stamped surface.

The scruffy desperado holds his bleeding hand to his chest, willing himself not to cry out in pain. The discharge of his wound is barely noticeable amidst the grime thickly layered on his leather vest. "You had no call to get involved, Mister. We was doin' just fine afore you showed up."

Across from him stands a man of exceptional good looks. A finely tailored charcoal pinstripe three piece suit is complemented by an ebony cravat with a large diamond pin. He, too, looks toward the third figure. "I assure you sir, I had everything under control. Your assistance was unnecessary."

"I beg to differ," comes the reply. The whip is deposited smoothly in it's holder and the Colt is kicked deftly into the left hand. The right hand grasps the brim of a pale straw Stetson, pulling it off with a flourish. "And don't call me sir." Silky auburn hair cascades over her shoulders in waves. The revolver barrel points menacingly toward the finely dressed man. "You, sir, remove your piece and slide it over... slowly."

Blinking as the sun glints off her highly polished badge, the gentleman removes an ivory handled stub nosed Smith and Wesson from it's holster and gently places it on the ground. He kicks it toward the waiting sheriff, and shakes his head in disbelief. What kind of woman... He doesn't finish the thought

Miss Jean Louis picks up the piece with her right hand, keeping the colt in her left aimed at the gentleman. Her thumb strokes the figure of the stag carved into the handle and whispers, "I've missed you baby," before pointing it toward the desperado. "You can join your friend there." She motions for him to move. The desperado obeys quickly and stands beside the gentleman.

Miss Jean Louis whistles shrilly her eyes never wavering from the two forms now completely in her control. A long moment passes. Suddenly the sound of hooves is heard pounding in the distance, drawing quickly closer. A white stallion comes skidding to a halt next to her. She holsters the colt and her left hand reaches up to grasp the saddle horn. With a quick hop she glides smoothly across the surface of the saddle.

Her gaze never leaves the two men as she lifts the reigns. "I usually consider myself a kind hearted person. I hate to make you two walk all the way back to town, especially with your horses standing right here. But considering you both have a reputation for disappearing where lawmen are concerned, I'm gonna have to insist."

Heads hung in shame, the pair begin to shuffle toward the corral gate. "And in case either of you get any ideas on running, I taught Annie Oakley everything she knows."

Religion and Politics

So we've gone this far, have we? Back in January Christian conservatives were given several positive political choices. Ted Cruz: Raised in an evangelical family with a history in the church. A politician with a strong pro-life stance, and an unwillingness to waiver in the face of religious complacency. Marco Rubio: A practicing Catholic with strong ties to the non-denominational evangelical church. Another strong Pro-life candidate who tries to live out his faith in the midst of a godless political culture. Ben Carson: a non career politician with deeply help pro-life beliefs, who specializes in separating conjoined twins. A seventh day Adventist with a strong religious perspective. John Kasich: an Anglican who believes in the literal Noah, and is trying to be a voice of hope for the poor and mentally ill. I could go on. Candidate after candidate with strong faith in God and a desire to lead the country back to Christian values. And then there's Trump.

The grand old party voted. 58.3% of Republicans decided they would rather have the savvy businessman run our country than any of the other candidates. That's right... a party that has an overwhelming majority of Christians voted predominantly for a man who bears almost zero resemblance to Christianity.

If 81% of republicans claim Christianity, and 58% of republicans voted to nominate Trump, even if the 17% of the non-Christians voted exclusively for Trump, that still leaves 41% of Christians who picked a cut-throat businessman over several other decidedly Christian possibilities. We are supposed to be the ones praying for God to guide our country back to him. We are the ones who are supposed to be humbling ourselves, praying,seeking God's face, and turning from our wicked ways, so God will hear our prayers, forgive our sins, and heal our land. And now we're here. The general election is 5 months away, and my social media is being peppered with headlines like this:

Honestly, I'm appalled, I'm embarrassed, and I'm angry. What is the point of this kind of media? What do they hope to gain? Is the body of Christ this ignorant? Are they willfully misleading people? Do they actually think Trump is saved?

Let's look at this critically. Let's say he's been saved all along. Do we want the kind of back sliding Christian leadership that this man represents? If he has been a Christian for years, he's broken his marriage vows, twice. He's owned and operated and invested in pornography in the form of at least one strip club. He's been cut-throat in business, protecting his personal wealth through legal loopholes while declaring bankruptcy in several failed business ventures, leaving thousands jobless. He's been an abortion supporter until the last few years.
Let's say he he only recently got saved. Is it really a good idea to put a baby Christian in the oval office? He will be subject to the scrutiny of the world, and attacked on all sides by demonic opposition. Is it right for those of us who have been in the faith longer to leave a vulnerable fellow human being open to that kind of spiritual abuse? If we truly had his best interest at heart, we would refuse to enable his pride and foolishness and encourage him to build up his spiritual inventory before taking on such a monumental task as that of being president. Then there's another possibility, but I hesitate to consider it. Is the church so desperate for unity in the face of our party's appalling nomination that they feel they must lie and manipulate fellow Christians into a false sense of unity by declaring this man a Christian when he has no Spiritual fruit to show? Certainly Christian leaders would never stoop so low. Surely Christian leaders would be willing to be honest and trust God to keep our nation safe no matter who is elected president in the fall. I'm being sarcastic, but I can't seem to shake this nagging fear in the back of my mind.

No! ... Just No!!!

I am beyond angry...

Granted there are plenty of things on Facebook that tick me off every day, and usually I can take a deep breath and scroll past them, or click the little "hide" button and move on.

But today is not that day.  Maybe I just have too much time on my hands while my BFF is away on vacation. Maybe social media anger has just been building up and this is the last straw.  Whatever it is, I'm at the point of wanting to reach through my screen and shake someone until their ears bleed.

Yeah, I'm still a Christian... we're allowed to be angry if it's righteous indignation, and I think this qualifies.

What is ticking me off, you ask?  What could possibly be so horrific as to cause sweet, fun loving, me to finally flip her lid?

Calvin Klein just announced they have a new "Plus-sized" model.

Meet Myla Delbasio:    She's a size 10  

To be clear, I'm not angry at Ms. Delbasio.  She's beautiful and clearly deserves the job. I have no beef to pick with her and I'm excited that she landed a high profile job in her chosen career.  I'm even happy that she's advocating change in the modeling industry.  

I'm pissed at Calvin Klein (and any other company) that hires a woman who fits in their normal sized clothes, and calls them plus-sized. It's such an obnoxious double standard, and marketing folks should be ashamed.

According to Cosmopolitan, "In the fashion industry, 'plus size' is a term for models who are size 8 and up."

Why can the fashion industry call their models plus size when their clothing sizes are not. Most stores stock clothing in sizes up to a 16 regular. A few stores, like New York & Co, might go as high as an 18, but typically these clothes aren't really designed for the curves of a heavyset woman.  Plus size clothing typically starts at a 14W and goes upward.    Calvin Klein doesn't sell clothes larger than a size 16 regular. Their famous jeans only fit women up to a 32x32, a size I couldn't fit after the age of 20.

Here is a picture of me at size 14. This was the smallest size I've reached since I turned 20, and I was only able to maintain it for about 6 months, despite insane levels of food control. I'm not kidding. I wasn't allowed to eat raisins or peas or other perfectly healthy foods because I was trying to be thinner than my DNA allowed.

If plus size is a size 8 and up, why do I have to pay extra for my plus size clothes? Typically internet merchants start up charging for sizes larger than an XL or size 14 reg.  The up charge can be as low as $2, but regardless, why should I have to pay extra for a tiny bit of extra fabric.

I understand clothing construction, and the amount of fabric difference between a 16 reg and a 16 plus is not enough to warrant even a $2 up charge.  If it was, there would be a $2 price difference for every size.  The plain fact is, merchants charge more for women who are above average because they know we have no choice in the matter.  

Yes, the national average is size 16.  So merchants know that roughly half the adult female population won't fit in the "standard" size category.  It's just plain business sense to make them pay an extra $2 for every piece of clothing they purchase.

Not only is it frustrating to me and the rest of my above average size female friends, it sends a terrible message to girls everywhere.  They already learn at a very early age that fat is a bad word.  They already feel self conscious and awkward when they enter puberty.  The last thing they need is to flip through a magazine or come across an ad on the internet touting someone who is their size as "plus size."  

Shame on you Calvin Klein.  In a perfect free market system, my sisterhood of body positivity would boycott your butts to bankruptcy along with any other clothing designers who dared to call a below average size model "plus-size."  The reality is that the modeling industry should start calling anyone below a size 10 "minus size" anyone from a 12-18 "average size" and anyone over 18 "plus size."

And just to be clear, I'm not in the slightest saying that smaller women are somehow "less".  I don't advocate the ridiculous beauty war being waged amongst women.  Some of us are bigger than others, some of us have larger breasts, or a larger bust, or thighs thin enough to leave a space between them when standing.  We are different, period, but we still deserve to be treated with respect no matter how our DNA decides what our adult shape should be, and marketing companies need to stop pitting us against each other by blurring terms.

School Dress Code vs Sexism

I've seen several similar posts on facebook recently championing the efforts of high school students trying to fight misogyny in their school dress codes.  If you haven't heard about it check this out. I've read the posts and I have to say I'm proud of the way these girls are handling this old sexist argument.

At the same time, however, I feel there is a necessary iteration of reality that needs to accompany this campaign.  Here is my response, and my message, to girls and schools and boys and feminists and pretty much anyone else who is willing to take a step back and look at this situation with wisdom and balance.  (note: if you're not willing to take a step back and consider a different point of view, please move along, I'm sure there are plenty of blogs out there that agree with you)

1)  Absolutely, absolutely I agree that the idea of telling girls they have to dress a certain way because they are a "distraction" to boys is wrong.  Boys will be boys, but that doesn't take away a girl's right to be a girl.  I think these girls are on the right track and I will champion their efforts to stamp out sexism.

I think school administrators need to re-think the way they handle dress code violations.  Telling a teenage girl she can't dress a certain way because boys will get distracted by how sexy she looks is the wrong way to approach this.  Boys know girls are sexy.  They have eyes.  The way a girl dresses should never give boys the right to objectify them.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Jb1pJLDXR0k/maxresdefault.jpg

2) Realistically, no matter how much we educate, train, or otherwise attempt to infuse character into our boys, they are going to see the sexuality of the female form.  It's in their DNA.  Does this give them the right to act on those impulses? No!  Does their chromosomal makeup somehow give them a free pass to objectify even the most scantily clad of women? No!

But there is some common sense to be had.  When I see a cute puppy I immediately am possessed with the desire to pet it.  Have I been taught not to touch someone else's dog without asking permission? Yes.  If I reach down to pet a puppy without asking and it bites me, I am the one to blame.  But I'm not just going to wake up one day and decide I hate puppies.

In the same way, boys find girls sexually attractive.  They may have the character to realize that they should wait until they are married to one girl before acting on those sexual impulses.  They may be taught by parents or school administrators that just because a girl is sexually appealing doesn't give them the right to act on their impulses.

3) What you wear in public defines you.  We can try to change this mindset, but it's been around forever and is deeply ingrained in our human makeup.  Hundreds of years ago society felt that it was wrong for a woman to uncover her legs.  There are rumors that during certain historical eras a woman could be arrested for showing her ankle in public.  Did that stamp out ankle baring?  No.  But anyone who saw a woman with bare ankles knew immediately that the woman was either a rebel, or a harlot (or both).  It really didn't matter if the woman saw herself as a rebel or a harlot.  Society chose to see her as such based on her reaction to the status quo.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1e/87/
5d/1e875dc19e5e60a7b1f2130c9d19bb53.jpg

You may not like society's determination of your personality based on your clothing choices, but they are there whether you like them or not.  You are free to fight against the current cultural stigma against certain clothing types, but you are not going to change everybody's mind.  If you want to fight this battle, you need to realize that it truly is a battle you are choosing.

You can wear denim underwear and a mesh top with a neon bra under it and walk around saying you are fighting the objectification of women and championing your rights as a feminist to wear what you want.  You have the freedom to do that.  I'm not going to take away that freedom.  But, when a misogynist approaches you and starts his feeble attempt to get lucky, you have to accept that your choice of attire sent him a culturally accepted message that you were open to his advances.  You can be offended by his actions, and you can decide in that moment to re-educate him, but unless you have some level of relationship with him, he's going to blow off everything that comes out of your mouth.

To reiterate with absolute clarity: what a person wears does not give anyone else the right to violate their personal boundaries.