Let's take a closer look at those breasts.
NOTICE: You are about to read a post that has been widely linked and discussed on various blogs, and I suspect that you are not inclined to read this post carefully or with any sympathy toward what I intended. So, I'm adding this note to make it more likely that you will understand what I am trying to say. First, I am writing from a feminist perspective, even though I am criticizing a feminist. Second, the "breasts" referred to in the heading are the drawings and photographs of breasts that a feminist blogger sees fit to decorate her blog with. I don't like that. Third, the real target of this post is Bill Clinton. I think Clinton betrayed feminism (and I hate the way many feminists have given him a pass). Fourth, this post is written in a humorous, cutting style. It's meant to hurt, but I am attacking public figures about an important issue.
What follows after the asterisks is the original post.
***
I wanted to elevate a discussion from the comments section of a post from Wednesday, you know the one with the photo of the Daou-wrangled bloggers posing in front of Bill Clinton? The first commenter, Goesh, picks up on my prompt -- "Let's just array these bloggers... randomly" -- and wisecracks: "Who is the Intern directly in front of him with the black hair?"
Eventually, Jessica from a blog called Feministing, shows up and says: "The, um, 'intern' is me. It's so nice to see women being judged by more than their looks. Oh, wait..."
Snarky but somewhat conciliatory, I say: "Well, Jessica, you do appear to be 'posing.' Maybe it's just an accident."
Jessica Feministing returns and says:
Sooooo... apparently, Jessica writes one of those blogs that are all about using breasts for extra attention. Then, when she goes to meet Clinton, she wears a tight knit top that draws attention to her breasts and stands right in front of him and positions herself to make her breasts as obvious as possible?
Well, I'm going to assume Jessica's contributions to my comments are an attempt at a comic performance, as was her attendence at the luncheon dressed in the guise of Monica Lewinsky. Lord knows we need more comical feminists.
Or are you going to say she's some kind of Karl Rove plant? Alternatives: She's a clueless fool. She's in it for the money. (And you know the blog money is all in the T-shirts.)
UPDATE: You know what? If you breastblog and someone calls you on it, just laugh. If you try to deny it, people will laugh at you. Case in point? The big comments thread herein. I'm not saying you should read all the stuff in there, even though some of it's funny (and it could be useful as raw material for a Women's Studies master's thesis), but really, denial is some serious quicksand. And thanks to Glenn for linking. Quoting the title of this post unleashed some serious Instalanche action. (I knew it would.) The most ever, actually. And late on a Friday! What are you going to do? Guys love breasts. I think Jessica knows that quite well. And I think for all her gasping outrage, she's thoroughly pleased to get this attention. And as for you chumps who spent the afternoon defending her... well, you're chumps. So am I for giving her the publicity.... but what the hell? It's Friday.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This post has gotten a lot of links from folks who profess "puzzlement." I think a lot of this puzzlement is willful blindness to the criticism of Clinton.
What follows after the asterisks is the original post.
***
I wanted to elevate a discussion from the comments section of a post from Wednesday, you know the one with the photo of the Daou-wrangled bloggers posing in front of Bill Clinton? The first commenter, Goesh, picks up on my prompt -- "Let's just array these bloggers... randomly" -- and wisecracks: "Who is the Intern directly in front of him with the black hair?"
Eventually, Jessica from a blog called Feministing, shows up and says: "The, um, 'intern' is me. It's so nice to see women being judged by more than their looks. Oh, wait..."
Snarky but somewhat conciliatory, I say: "Well, Jessica, you do appear to be 'posing.' Maybe it's just an accident."
Jessica Feministing returns and says:
It's a picture; people pose. And I'm not sure I understand your logic anyway. If I "pose" for a picture (as opposed to sulking and hunching over?) then I deserve to be judged for my looks? I don't see anyone talking shit about the other bloggers smiling pretty for the camera.Provoked, I decide to actually give her a small dose of the kind of judgment for brains she seems to demanding:
Jessica: I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself.) I'm judging you by your apparent behavior. It's not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about. I really don't know why people who care about feminism don't have any edge against Clinton for the harm he did to the cause of taking sexual harrassment seriously, and posing in front of him like that irks me, as a feminist. So don't assume you're the one representing feminist values here. Whatever you call your blog....Making this colloquy into this new blog post, I actually click over to Jessica's blog, and what the hell? The banner displays silhouettes of women with big breasts (the kind that Thelma and Louise get pissed off at when they're seen on truck mudflaps). She's got an ad in the sidebar for one of her own products, which is a tank top with the same breasty silhouette, stretched over the breasts of a model. And one of the top posts is a big closeup on breasts.
Sooooo... apparently, Jessica writes one of those blogs that are all about using breasts for extra attention. Then, when she goes to meet Clinton, she wears a tight knit top that draws attention to her breasts and stands right in front of him and positions herself to make her breasts as obvious as possible?
Well, I'm going to assume Jessica's contributions to my comments are an attempt at a comic performance, as was her attendence at the luncheon dressed in the guise of Monica Lewinsky. Lord knows we need more comical feminists.
Or are you going to say she's some kind of Karl Rove plant? Alternatives: She's a clueless fool. She's in it for the money. (And you know the blog money is all in the T-shirts.)
UPDATE: You know what? If you breastblog and someone calls you on it, just laugh. If you try to deny it, people will laugh at you. Case in point? The big comments thread herein. I'm not saying you should read all the stuff in there, even though some of it's funny (and it could be useful as raw material for a Women's Studies master's thesis), but really, denial is some serious quicksand. And thanks to Glenn for linking. Quoting the title of this post unleashed some serious Instalanche action. (I knew it would.) The most ever, actually. And late on a Friday! What are you going to do? Guys love breasts. I think Jessica knows that quite well. And I think for all her gasping outrage, she's thoroughly pleased to get this attention. And as for you chumps who spent the afternoon defending her... well, you're chumps. So am I for giving her the publicity.... but what the hell? It's Friday.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This post has gotten a lot of links from folks who profess "puzzlement." I think a lot of this puzzlement is willful blindness to the criticism of Clinton.
Labels: anti-Althousiana, Bill Clinton, blogging, breasts, feminism, gender politics
Stumble It! Facebook DiggIt! Del.icio.us
posted by Ann Althouse at 12:03 PM
502 Comments:
Ann, she was wearing a tee shirt, not a cocktail dress. She was noticeable only for being unusually attractive.
Please don't embarrass yourself any further.
Pathetic try at spin, Doyle. You must be really dizzy.
But I certainly think that to really do a great comic performance, Jessica should have worn a beret. Blue dress would have been good too.
Your focus on Clinton's sexuality was lame. As was your commenter's focus on the intern.
It's OK, we all give in to those impulses.
It's the new Feminism 3.0!
"Hey, look at my tits! No, don't look at them like that, you pig!"
Coincidentally, my two favorite blogs (I read both daily) are this one and Feministing. I really don't like that a whole post was devoted to this. It's not the type of thing I like to see.
Oh, and the real thing is to point out her compared to the rest of the (much dumpier) females there. They're standing, she's posing.
It's the difference between a genuine smile and a fixed grin for the camera.
Victor: Your attempt to give Doyle an assist is also pathetic. I'm just calling them as I see them.
And I do mean them.
Wow, did somebody pee in Ann's cheerios today?
I think you're overthinking this. Still, chuckleworthy.
Dorothy: Face reality. Sorry if it hurts.
Todd's making a play for a line in my banner.
While lurking once on another blog, I witnessed a quarrel between two Feministas and another female blogger. I don't even remember the topic, but within minutes of the quarrel starting, the Feministas were attacking the other women for being a lonely, dried-up, childless spinster who was just jealous of younger, prettier girls.
Feminists my ass.
And anyone who doesn't like what I'm saying about Jessica, prove your good faith by condemning the "Daily Show" clip about Katherine Harris that I've linked to.
Notice Clinton: Can't see his hands and he's checking out the profile like a coyote looking at a pork chop! For appearance sake she should have stood anywhere but directly in front of the lech in Chief.
This intern has her line in the water and is trolling for Clinton saying "you can look, but don't touch the bait!"
Maybe she thinks she really can have it all!
What's the deal with "feminists" hanging out with Bill Clinton? We are talking about the same guy who is notorious for his extramarital affairs? The same man who when he was nearly fifty years old and the most powerful man in the world, started boffing a 22 year old female subordinate and later denied it during a sexual harassment lawsuit against him?
Feminists hang out with that guy?
Ann,
From a Darwinian perspective, Femisnisting was simply featuring what she perceives to be natural advantages. Sexual display for a powerful male is quite common in Washigton, by that I mean the animal kingdom. And the old lech, I mean President Clinton, is obviously enjoying the show.
I don't know whether or not orthodox feminists should behave in said manner. From a survival of the fittest perpsective, it's probably a bit dangerous around Bill Clinton.
The Jon Stewart link is a pathetic display of frat house humor. I am not a feminist but humor like that, especially when Stewart repeats the bad joke as if we didn't hear it the first time, is immature and juvenile. Where is the backlash from the feminists? Where us the backlash from the democrats? Do I hear any jokes about Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer?
Key sound of crickets!
The only reason Clinton fired a cruise missile at UBL was because he was saying:
"YES YES YES, OH GOD YES" to Monica and somebody at the door thought it was permission to send a cruise missile.
Yeah, Ann, what is it with women showing cleavage and then getting all hissy if you look?
And, BTW, I have talked to a bunch of women who spontaneously allowed that they would love to give Clinton oral sex! So, apparently, "sexual harassment" may be going the other way. An inconvenient truth?
I wonder if Jessica read this comment while she was trolling around the blog,
"SippicanCottage said...
The girl in the center is a hot babe, huh?
This is why plain girls go to trekkie conventions. In here, I'm Miss America"
I thought that one was pretty devistating. I think Jessica is pretty atractive, but I have a thing for brunettes and skinny girls with bige breasts. I am willing to overlook a lot of other flaws if a woman has those two assets.
Fatmouse said...
"It's the new Feminism 3.0!"
Actually, were it new, it would be Feminism 4.0, but as it is, it's perfectly exemplary of many of the things that a wrong with the Third Wave.
It's a shame, because both Feministing and Pandagon have gotten unbearably shrill in recent months, despite the fact that they really used to be quite enjoyable, in a disagreeable sort of way. I think it's basically driving them absolutely crazy that they have practically no power to control events at the moment; it's really going to be a shock to these people when they don't prosper anything like as much as they think they're going to in the midterms. No doubt, there will be allegations that it was stolen.
The same man who when he was nearly fifty years old and the most powerful man in the world, started boffing a 22 year old female subordinate and later denied it during a sexual harassment lawsuit against him?
This is what drove me away from the democratic party and really made me reform my allegiance to (who I thought were) my fellow feminists. I wasn't crazy about Bill's affairs, but I gave Hillary enough credit where I was able to reason, "if it's ok with her, it's ok with me." But when the sexual harassment stuff started coming out... and there was defending of him instead of condemnations!!!! I was seriously, seriously disillusioned.
Doyle:
Unusually attractive? Who's embarrassing him/herself here?
You could have been there yourself Ann, if you had just thrown a hissy fit about the "Path to 9/11". Not in your character as I perceive it but perhaps the thought experiment would be useful for you to undertake!
I also clicked over to Jessica's blog, and was similarly unimpressed. A post about a shirt that says "You cum like a girl"? WTF? One commenter nailed it(loosely quoted): "You insult a guy with those words? Like a female orgasm is somehow inferior?". Seems like 90% of the (admittedly small) stuff I read was nothing but sex, sex, sex. I suppose that's empowering somehow.
I always vote in favor of large breasts--oops--freudian slip
I do agree wholeheartedly with Ann's point about the to-do the portside branch of politics made about Katherine Harris' looks, make-up and hair--and to this day, the feminist movement, IMO, gave up any pretext of principle when they failed to condemn the ex-president for his conduct. As long as you get those abortions on demand, anything else is fair game.
The one thing I notice in the picture is that Jessica is inappropriately dressed for a meeting with an ex-President. She's wearing pajama tops. I doubt the commentary would've evolved as it did if she wore a jacket over the shirt.
Just so I'm not accused of sexism, I'll note that the guys on either end are also way underdressed. It's better to overdress and remove tie/jacket than to be underdressed when invited to dine.
I will agree, also, that (although I've never met her and this could be her normal pose) it looks like she's more than posing. She's voguing. Look at me! I'm lunchin' with Bill!
Seems like 90% of the (admittedly small) stuff I read was nothing but sex, sex, sex. I suppose that's empowering somehow.
I think this comes from several sources:
1. the strong idealization by feminists of the era of the sexual revolution--this era really brought the birth of feminism and it's very romanticized, no pun intended by a lot of them. As it is, obviously, by a lot of liberals.
2. the desire to IN NO WAY be associated with the religious right. There is nothing that drives a feminist up the wall like being perceived as sharing an agenda with them (such as anti-porn, etc.) In my experience, a lot of feminists go way overboard with the sex stuff to differentiate themselves.
3. they think it makes them sound tough. Sort of like that Samantha character in "Sex and the City" was supposed to be so strong and independent.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pete the Streak, your comment makes me speculate that Feministing is intended for lefty men who crave some sexual content but feel they must limit themselves to things that aren't sexist. I haven't read enough of it to see if there's anything that would impress me as bona fide feminist content.
Madison Man, you're right that half of the bloggers showed up underdressed. Unless they were told to dress "like bloggers" or whatever, they were pretty disrespectful to dress like they did. The men should have worn suits and ties to a lunch with a former president. Now, an argument could be made that one ought to show disrespect to presidents, but their blog posts show them fawning over him. So why didn't they dress better? Bloggers!
Ann, I agree with your points, particularly after clicking to your links and checking out the "feminist" site -- are the buxom broads at the top redeemed from being demeaning because they are giving stage right the finger? Be prepared for that argument. Also, I noticed a mention of Ann Richards but nothing for Orianna Fallaci on that site (and was reading a long essay by Fallaci this morning when I realized that SHE was one who first described "Islamic Fascism", rather than it being an invention of Chimpy McBush Hitler. Too bad the trial for being anti-Islamic cannot now proceed in Italy, unless of course it can.
Pete the Streak, your comment makes me speculate that Feministing is intended for lefty men who crave some sexual content but feel they must limit themselves to things that aren't sexist. I haven't read enough of it to see if there's anything that would impress me as bona fide feminist content.
Madison Man, you're right that half of the bloggers showed up underdressed. Unless they were told to dress "like bloggers" or whatever, they were pretty disrespectful to dress like they did. The men should have worn suits and ties to a lunch with a former president. Now, an argument could be made that one ought to show disrespect to presidents, but their blog posts show them fawning over him. So why didn't they dress better? Bloggers!
Ann:
What a total takedown you did on her! Why do they generally believe they are so righteous? Sothey can't see when they are being inconsistent as in the examples you pointed out?
As to your original post- it was fine. You are great observer of stuff- that is what makes your blog interesting.
knoxgirl, dunno whether I entirely agree but sounds plausible. I remember thinking Wonkette was completely off her rocker if she thought sounding like the boys locker room was sexy!
But since you double posted and removed the second post I got to wondering whether that is the origin of most of the post removals. I always figured it was because the author reconsidered.
Sorry, the phrase Orianna used was "Islamic Nazism"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1450024/posts
I don't know, Feministing's sex-charged layout always struck me as strange as well. It kind of begs for this type of post, doesn't it? I don't have a problem with it per se, but it certainly doesn't seem compatible with then complaining about people commenting on it (or women's looks generally). After all, the whole point of the site seems to be to meld feminism, sexuality and politics, and to say that that's ok.
If I happened to be Arnold Scharzenegger, and I ran a blog, and I put up a picture of me in a muscle shirt flexing my arms, I think I would get made fun of too. Whether or not either is appropriate is probably more of an issue of whether we should be more open to mixing sex with politics, not really a matter of feminism. At the same time, when you do it on a blog about feminism, that also raises some questions which seem like you'd expect to have to answer.
I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself.)
That may be the best line I read all day.
Feministing -- what an odd word. Depending on context, it would seem equally appropriate as a conjugate form of feminist, or an amalgamation of 'feminist' and 'sting.' Even if the latter is the intended use, 'sting' could equally refer to a manifestation of power (like a bee's sting) or an act of deception (like the 1980s motion picture). The site might be able to explain the origins of the word....but that would require me to actually go there.
Lest there be any doubt about it, any guy who visits a website with a form of 'feminist' in the title is only there to pick up lefty chicks (which might explain the emphasis on the mammary).
Actually, were it new, it would be Feminism 4.0, but as it is, it's perfectly exemplary of many of the things that a wrong with the Third Wave.
Yes. Feminism has eveloved and taken many new forms over the years. Which for most people of both genders is a positive thing.
For those looking for stability, it seems that Feministing solidly re-enforces the "long-standing, self-centered, immature, whiny, b..." stage of human development: "I can say what ever I please and contribute nothing!"
I've never thought about feminism specifically. I think my approach is "situational meritocracy." If I o were out looking for women, breasts would be important. If I were to be discussing economics breasts would be unimportant. Its easy for me to believe that, situationally, someone would think it was important to display their breasts around Mr. Clinton. I also believe that feministing.com has situated itself as a place where breasts are very important, even while they would have me believe that is not the case.
is this a republican blog, or is it just the commenters?
ms. althouse, you may be a fine lawyer, but wonkette you ain't. maybe a different tone would work better for you.
Wow, Ann. You certainly like talking about my breasts. You know, if you feature t-shirts for women, they tend of have breasts in them. And as for my "pose," I moved to the side because I figured that people would be more interested in seeing Clinton than me standing directly in front of him.
As for attacking the content of my site, that's just kind of low. I posted about this on feministing because I was trying to make a point about the insanity that is feminists attacking each other. This is just kind of sad.
You know, Feministing exists in large part because this is the treatment young women always get whenever they try to act as if they have, you know, value. They get ridiculed as if they're sex objects--and then told why they "asked for it."
As for picking up leftie chicks: I live in Mississippi. Jessica lives in New York City. Get real.
Ms. Althouse, I'm more than happy to condemn the Katherine Harris clip. And the attacks on Ann Coulter for having an Adam's apple. But you're the one who's going to have to live with the fact that you treat young women in exactly the same patronizing, hypersexualized way that Bill Clinton did. If you're not willing to judge Jessica Valenti for her mind, I don't see how you're any better than Kos or the other anti-feminist liberal bloggers.
Cheers,
TH
Someone nailed it earlier:
"Look at my boobs!"
"STOP LOOKING AT MY BOOBS!"
Also, I had a rather different interpretation of the "Feministing" moniker which either shows that A) I have an exceptionally deviant mind, or B) "A" as well as being particularly perceptive.
Pete:
"Seems like 90% of the (admittedly small) stuff I read was nothing but sex, sex, sex. I suppose that's empowering somehow."
It's called Sex-positive feminism, and it is a reactionary outgrowth against those feminists who were opposed to pornography (Greer, Paglia, Levy et al). In the view of these people, it is empowering that, although Asia Carerra, for example, makes a living by being sexually objectified, it is liberating that she is able to do so, and that she is her own pimp. I'm sceptical, to say the least, that there is anything "liberating" about a career in prostitution, but that's their premise.
Third wave feminism, it seems to me, have never had so much to do with discrimination against women qua women as it has had to do with uniting various left-wing causes with the very worst of left-wing habits of mind.
I thought Althouse's comments were appropriate. The woman in the picture seems trite in every way. And anyone who thinks she is "unusually attractive" needs to get out more.
Oh Puh-lease!
The reason that Jessica posted on Ann's blog in the comments in because she wanted to draw attention to herself. "Look at me!"
The reason that Jessica "posed" in front of the president? Same thing, "Look at me!"
The reason that Jessica's blog is all sexed up is because it draws attention to her..."Look at me!"
This isn't about feminism or even about Presidential luncheon etiquitte. This is about Jessica's immature cries for attention.
She's simply using feminism as a front to achieve that goal.
Geez--so much for beauty being in the eye of the beholder!
Ms. Althouse, since this is the second consecutive thread on this issue that has degenerated into a series of attacks on Jessica's looks, maybe that should tell you something about the tone you've achieved here.
You think Bill Clinton doesn't value young feminists as human beings? That's sensible. You think liberal bloggers acquiesce to him when they shouldn't? That's sensible.
But then you turn around with this completely contradictory bullshit about how this particular young feminist really is a sex object and (implicitly) really should acquiesce to him, if only for the sake of consistency.
I wish you'd make up your mind. You can't use an anti-feminist argument and a radical feminist argument at the same time and expect it to not reduce the quality of discourse to the point where it all becomes a glorified hotornot.com session.
Cheers,
TH
Jessica: Since when is criticizing a blog's content out of bounds? You want to be judged on your intellect rather than your figure, don't you?
I only glanced at it, but the banner is rather vulgar, to say the least.
I don't have the link on me but Jessica recently attacked women who believe in modesty in The Guardian.
If Jessica can judge women who dress modestly, why are Ann's comments illegit?
OK, I am seriously procrastinating by reading all the comments in this thread!
If Jessica was like, "I'm not making fun of any woman for her dress" then that's one thing, but when she wants to make fun of conservative women she does so what's the dif?
Emily, I didn't attack them for dressing modestly--I attacked the idea of the "modesty movement" and their regressive views about women.
Truly, I meant that criticizing the blog's content as "all about using breasts" without actually reading the site is low.
Emily, I didn't attack them for dressing modestly--I attacked the idea of the "modesty movement" and their regressive views about women.
Truly, I meant that criticizing the blog's content as "all about using breasts" without actually reading the site is low.
@ TH
As for picking up leftie chicks: I live in Mississippi. Jessica lives in New York City. Get real.
Obviously, how silly of me. After all, there's no chance that other people from outside of New York view that blog. Likewise, the possibility of travel to or from New York is equally impossible.
(And, BTW, what kind of real feminist is completely willing to overlook my use of the word 'chicks'? I stand resolute in my opinion.)
As to the photo, and Ms. Feministing herself:
Believe it or not, Bill Clinton knows how to have his photo taken with a group. If he can't see the camera...or thinks he's blocked by the camera...he'll move. Worst case - they'll re-shoot and use a different picture. And even if you're 'pose' rationale is to be believed....that really doesn't explain why you're posed in profile. Unless you have some neck condition we don't know about which prevented you from squaring up to the camera, I'm not buying it.
(Of course, if you hadn't placed said profile directly in the center of the photograph...chances are we aren't having this discussion.)
apologies for the double post
Ann,
I'm judging you by your apparent behavior. It's not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about.
If you look at the picture you linked to in your first post on Jessica and her breasts you'll see that at least six other people are looking in the same direction Jessica is looking. As is common in large gatherings there was clearly more than one camera here, hence the picture you see.
As far as I can tell your two posts on Jessica offer nothing more than sheer jealousy that liberal, nay, feminist bloggers are being given space to speak with President Clinton. In t-shirt and jeans no less (though your protestations echo Kurtz, I can't possibly believe you're nitpicking as to what people wore to a private meeting with a president).
Your attacks on Jessica are incredibly juvenile. Inane, irrelevant, unconstructive, vacuous, and insulting to the intelligence of anyone who wasted their time reading it. I seriously feel dumber for having read these two posts.
Can you please offer one substantive critique of a feminist blogger, attractive or otherwise, young or otherwise, attending a meeting with Bill Clinton?
I'd note that Jessica is probably the youngest blogger there. Her presence is a sign of stature and her brilliance. She is deserving of praise for breaking into a meeting defined by middle-aged men and women.
we see the world as we are. if all ann althouse and her commenters can see are breasts breasts everywhere they look, how strange. but then, breasts are nice. it could be worse.
Jessica: Why don't you attempt a substantive defense of your own blog instead of saying things here are "low" and "sad"? I'm really disgusted with women fawning over Clinton and playing up to him. Why not read the posts I've linked to here, like this one, and get to some serious reflection about feminism? You come across as a lightweight seeking attention on the web for pretty much nothing. You load up your blog with breasts, and then you're offended why someone points it out. That's low and sad if you want to just dribble out three letter words.
You do not impress me at all. I don't see how you have a damn thing to do with feminism. You seem like a self-promoter appropriating and debasing a word that's important. You've got a lot of explaining to do. I can see why you prefer to go on the offensive and attack me. But all you're attacking me for is something I pointed out about you. Why don't you defend yourself? Or better yet, why don't you try blogging without those crappy silhouettes and tight T-shirts? And start taking what Clinton did seriously. Then I might begin to have some respect for you. But I expect you'll just come back with another wow, Ann, you're really low and sad to talk about my breasts comment. And that will be totally lame, let me say in advance. It's obvious that you're bending over backwards -- figuratively and literally -- to keep the attention on your breasts. How about some actual intellectual substance instead?
I think the main idea here is that it is very, very difficult to pose with the president with your tits hoisted and in a little grey t-shirt and be taken seriously as an intellectual.
So, to review:
1. Hoist your tits and pose.
2. Be a serious mover and shaker in the intellectual world.
3. Both.
The subject of the debate clearly has succeeeded at (1). It appears based on the evidence that she has failed at (2).
I don't know, by the way, that feminism is really at issue. George Clooney spoke at the UN Security Council this week. Did anyone take himself seriously? I doubt it. While Clooney does not have nice breasts, he obviously has traded successfully on certain aspects of his appearance. Once you do that, it's hard to get taken seriously regarding policy. (Only one person I can think of has ever done it: Ronald Reagan.)
Isn't this all just a tempest in a C-Cup?
(let me take a closer look . . . OK, possibly a tempest in a B-Cup, it's hard to tell, given the enhancing effect of the pose)
However, the real question everyone should be thinking about, would a Republican former President who posed in a room full of rabid right wing bomb throwing radio show hosts or bloggers be given a pass regarding 'endorsing' the lunatic fringe of his party?
And to Jessica at Feministing, don't you know that 'flipping the bird' as an insult is all part of the eeeevil phallocentric hegemony endemic throughout male dominated culture?
The upraised middle finger is a substitute phallus, if you really want to promote feminism your site wouldn't reproduce this sort of abusive phallocentric imagery within your banner.
One might also ask why Jessica was invited to this Clinton summit in the first place. Her blog ranks far below the others represented at the lunch. Her page views are, for example, far belows yours, Ann, but massively below Kos, significantly below TalkLeft, Firedoglake, and the other well-known and popular progressive sites, based on Alexa, which Technorati uses.
(To be fair, I compared her site to mine and she kicks my ass like she was John Kerry and I was a swiftboater. But I wasn't expecting an invite.)
I am not suggesting she was invited for her appearance. But could it be tokenism?
It's obvious that you're bending over backwards -- figuratively and literally -- to keep the attention on your breasts.
no. your post is titled "LET'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THOSE BREASTS," ann. your post, not jessica's. you are an idiot.
Philo, it was me who -- as you call it -- nitpicked about the dress of those who met former President Clinton. I'll restate what I said: If Jessica had worn something more respectful of the office of the Presidency, this entire thread would not have taken place. She thrust her breasts into the spotlight and took umbrage that people noticed. That sounds narcissistic to me. And you sound like a sycophant.
Jessica,
I think you rock - and your outfit was perfectly fine to wear for a lunch.
I hope you ignore this crap.
I can't believe that you would not wear your best, most business-like suit to a meeting with any president of any country, present or past, whether you like the person or don't.
Perhaps the meta-argument here is: Jessica, grow the @#$%& up!.
And she will. Everybody does.
Ms. Althouse, it's really obvious--based on your high tolerance for right-wing anti-feminist posts, and your low tolerance for young liberal feminists--just what kind of Phyllis-Schlafly-meets-Ann-Coulter schtick you've got going on here.
Cheers,
TH
Re: the dress of the attendees, there is no possible way that many people chose not to wear a suit unless they were instructed not to. Give these people some credit, please.
re: Feministing's banner, I think people are taking it the wrong way. The mud flap girls are a symbol of the objectification of women, and having them defiantly giving the finger sends a message that they're sick of it.
@bjk: as a man who regularly reads feministing and many other "feminist" blogs, please. Grow up. Everything I do does not revolve around meeting women to date, and I suspect there are many men who agree, like TH. If the idea that men can be intellectually curious about the feminist movement is that surprising to you, perhaps you should read a bit more. The issues discussed on these blogs impact us all as human beings, not just as men and women separately.
Ann -
This disaster of a discussion began with your gratuitous swipe at the attendees of a lunch, who either "gravitated" or were "Daou-wrangled" into meeting with Bill Clinton.
Your initial post took extra care to call attention to the "intern" standing in front of the Clenis, as evidence of some moral failing on her part, or Bill's, or both. That was weird, and depressing, as I pointed out in that thread.
Now it turns out she's not an intern, but has a blog that you're not at all impressed with, so you're whaling on her for that.
Why does Jessica suddenly owe you "intellectual substance" when there hasn't been any here for days?
It is unbelievable how much you have read into this photo. Based entirely on an image of a pretty girl posing for a photograph you have her standing in her room that morning tarting herself up for a former president, the photographer, and the general public. You even seem to have her elbowing her way into position in front of the president either to get leered at by him or so that we would all see how pretty she is when we look at Clinton in the image. Though the objective perception seems to be that Jessica is, in fact, pretty, you condemn her for being so in a picture as if it were her duty to take Atrios' place in the back to be obscured from view.
Take a moment and consider how Jessica got to the event. Did she present her breasts at the door and get ushered in, or perhaps was it her reputation as a blogger, her dedicated readership, and unique contribution to the blogosphere? To focus so heavily on one pose in a single photo is to ignore what she accomplished to get into that photo, what she contributed at the meeting, and how she plans to continue her work now. It is, in effect, to discount the person to dwell on the body, which is shallow, regressive and a good indicator why Ms. Althouse wasn't invited to join the group. Had she gone, I'm sure she would have dressed in full Islamic garb to ensure that no one would assume that her breasts got her into the room--just like she'd stick to legit issues on her blog lest people think she's the intellectual equivalent of the tramp she accuses Jessica of being.
if all ann althouse and her commenters can see are breasts breasts everywhere they look
Interesting summary. Speaking for myself, what I object to is not breast, breasts, everywhere, but that a person who writes a blog called feministing is meeting with Bill Clinton.
Sorry: there is simply NO WAY to be an intellectually honest feminist and admire Clinton at the same time. (if Jessica wants to be taken seriously, she has to address this.)
With that said, though it resulted in an amusing photo, I personally do not believe that she posed that way on purpose.
Actually, Doyle, this disaster of a discussion began with someone who clearly doesn't understand the engineering brilliance of a good modern bra calling a grossly average-looking woman "unusually attractive."
Oh, so now she's supposed to gussy up for the "office of the presidency"? While at the same time not showing any deference by posing with Clinton? Make up your damn minds, people.
Cheers,
TH
seven machos, it sounds to me like you and Ms. Althouse represent the same stream of "feminism."
I'm done here. I don't like to waste time arguing with intellectually dishonest right-wing hacks.
Cheers,
TH
Yes, Doyle, it's such a buzz-kill.
Not Clinton's behavior, of course! ... but when people remind you of it. How dare they.
Tom -- Yes, that pose shrieks deference. And humility. What she seems to be saying is, "This is not about me."
Tom,
I'd like to hear your justification of Clinton's behavior.
See ya, Tom.
So this is how wars start. Cool.
Ann, you have only two choices. (A) Erase this post and all the comments, or (B) get out those topless pix of you from Woodstock.
Otherwise, these comments may degenerate into useless, repetitive, escalating vituperation.
calling a grossly average-looking woman "unusually attractive."
seven, this comment is grossly below the level of commentary on this blog, You're going to far, IMO.
Mr. Head: There may be a lot of right wingers in my comments, but your equation of that with anti-feminism is quite ignorant.
Interesting point about Feministing being a much lower traffic blog than the other one's represented in the group. But I couldn't see what the traffic was over there. Anyway, I read Jessica's bio, and I found it hard to see what Mr. Head was drooling over.
And, people, I know Mr. Head, is a troll. He, and others, can't do much more than stamp their feet and name call. One senses they are very young. In any case, they aren't sharp and they aren't funny. The level of commenter sent over from Feministing is perhaps an indication of the quality of that blog.
Hey, like 10 comments went up while I was writing this. I guess a nerve has been hit. I hope some of the regular readers say something funny soon. I'm sooooooo bored with Jessica's breasts and they guys who are championing them/her.
Wow. This is really sad. Talk about hating. Do I have to worry about what I wear now in order to be feminist? You would think Jessica would be getting nothing but props for being INVITED to attend this roundtable blog discussion with a former president. It's this kind of monologue that keeps feminism down in this country.
And Ann, it looks like your blouse in that photo of yours would have been showing cleavage if you didn't crop it...
David said...
Notice Clinton: Can't see his hands
No David, if you look at the Feministing version, you can see Bill's hands are all visible.
As for Jessica's www site and this discussion overall I think both are fairly puerile. My quick take is that it is a Wonkette clone without the good DC gossip. same sorts of over the top sexual commentary to titillate. Same bad jokes, like that Harris spoof. I note however that Harris and Jessica both do like that 3/4 pose with pecs extended, and tight tops.
Ann, you went for a cheap Clinton/intern laugh at Jessica's expense. Then you berated her for complaining about the insult.
Think about it: The "intern" joke is classic sexism. A young female blogger gets invited to a meeting with a former president. She gets called an intern--which in this context implies both underling and lover. This is the kind of sexist crap that people have used to undermine women since time immemorial.
Instead of backing down, you tell her she deserved the putdown and go on berate her for complaining.
Sticking with the old standbys, you insist that she's fair game for sexist putdowns because you don't like her wardrobe or her body language.
Then you follow up with the sexist canard that any hint of a sexual persona in any context makes a woman fair game for scorn and ridicule.
Don't call this attack feminist.
How are you going to respond to that, Ann? Her blog is breast-free!
A young female blogger gets invited to a meeting with a former president.
Not just any blogger. A feminist blogger.
Not just any president. A sexual harassing president.
See the problem????
HEAD! You lost yours in this discussion. You were had!
ann, if you're bored with jessica's breasts, why did you write a post titled "let's take a closer look at those breasts"? i still don't understand.
if you think women should be ashamed of their bodies, i hear the taliban is making a comeback in afghanistan.
Doyle: "Now it turns out she's not an intern..."
Doyle, why are you this dumb? It's really not fair to Feingold that you're using his picture to represent you.
Lindsay Beyerstein is my new hero.
Lindsay: You aren't answering enough of my questions. Look at that blog! Tell me why you accept feminism presented that way. And read my old post that I linked to about how Clinton and feminism. You're brushing this off and not taking it seriously. I'm laying out a challenge here and you're engaging in spin, acting like I'm just stooping for a cheap laugh, but that is not so. There is a serious point here, and you're ignoring it.
pluripotentate: The breasts issue isn't about shame, it's about contradictions. You can't demand to be taken seriously intellectually and flaunt your feminine sexuality at the same time. I tried to explain this over on feministing and got vacant stares. I don't know how to explain it any more simply. It just doesn't make sense.
Actually, Ann, Lindsay is pointing out exactly the fact that you only fished for objections to Jessica's content after you were caught being a complete ass. You tacked on a bogus feminist critique to a sexist cheap shot.