Every week it's another dustup in the blogosphere. Sometimes I'm the one who's kicked up the dust. Sex and politics... people get so worked up about it. Me, I'm serene, just making a few observations, dropping a sarcastic comment, causing a big political freak out.
Stream it right through your computer here. But the sublimely serene listeners subscribe on iTunes:
CORRECTION; Listening to the podcast, I note that at one point, in describing the blog Feministing, I say that the images there show bras. That's wrong, and I apologize for saying that. The images on Feministing show women in tight T-shirts with closeups focusing on the breasts and, prominently displayed in the banner, silhouettes of (apparently) naked women with very large breasts, the mudflap image that has enraged women for decades. And I do realize the women are giving the finger, but this, of course, reinforces the point that the blogger enthusiastically employs sexual imagery for effect. I wonder if the Feminist Law Professors, who felt injured by the fact that David Lat uses sex playfully on his blog, also feel injured by the way Feministing exploits sexuality? Oddly, no. They condemn me for calling her on it.
पोस्ट्स
५३ टिप्पण्या:
I can't believe it's been a year. There's no way. Are you serious?
People have all kinds of weird ideas about Lyndon Johnson. I know at least three different people who seriously believe he's behind the Kennedy assassination.
I'm simul-commenting the podcast drunk. Yes. I'm going to regret this in like 10 minutes.
It's so cute that you liked Barry Goldwater. I love it.
Okay, I'm stopping. Dinner is ready. And then I might come back and delete these stupid comments.
I love the podcasts--this one was especially good and thought provoking. Thanks.
But Chuck B., all those stupid comments are the good kind of stupid comments (even considering the profanity).
I vote for not deleting them.
(and of course, I'll have to go back and delete this comment if you delete your previous four comments, please don't make me do that)
Aww, I'm sure more than 3 people listened.
As far as the audio/visual question, text definitely allows your audience more control over pacing the informational flow though, which is nice for the occasional multi-tasking kind of afternoon.
If I were both inclined to stream audio and maybe a little more frivolous with my hard fought penny collection, I think I would invest in voice recognition/speech to text software (like iListen) so I could keep and maybe share transcripts.
I enjoy watching tv with the closed captions on as well as then reading recaps too, though, so maybe it's just a personal quirk.
I want to say, without much elaboration [and certainly no reference to the Boobie Wars whatsoever because honestly i cannot be bothered] that I like feminism and I consider myself a feminist no matter what all manner of agenda-driven people have to say about the subject of feminism. Here and here, that's it, I'm done.
Loved the "air quotes"
AuH2O -- 1960. Too cool.
I'd hate to see you quit podcasting entirely. It's a great option in the art form. I also like the vlogging [more Tonya!]
Humorlessness is more unattractive than unshaved armpits.
Great podcast! I don't listen to them all but do enjoy them. It could have used more jutting breasts though.
It's SO true. Never blog mad.
Mad is for driving.
Cracking jokes that hit sore spots is a very passive-aggressive way of going about getting one's point across.
I admire it highly. :-)
Oh, and yes, we enjoy the soothing voice of reason -- whether virtual or real.
Audible Althouse, cool. I guess if you called it "Oral Althouse" the Feministers would get all over you. ;)
John in Nashville: The last time I gave Bush a hard time was on Friday, here. Also last week, there's this.
Who am I to further tweak the discussion at hand? 'Nuff said and seen, well rounded commentary as usual by some pretty sharp folks who really stand out in the crowd of oh-so-average respondents, despite the occaional person who wants to bust out of the polite constraints associated with this Blog.
I love the podcast! It gives me something to listen to in the background when I'm reading other blogs!
Oh, my. Leaving aside your ongoing and ideologically selective dishonesty about Feministing you're not ocontiunuing with your bizarre (and contradicted by everyone there) conspriacy theory that the picture was arranged to show off Valenti rather than the incredibly obscure principle of "putting the shorter people in front." But, just to top it, you actually argue that the "simplest explanation" for NARAL's house blogger being invited to a blogger meetup was...so Bill Clinton could get set up?
Further dialogue on the subject is evidently pointless; the ability that Clinton has to drive reactionaries beyond any connection with rationality is astounding. I look forward to your subsequent series of posts about how the whole meeting was set up so that Clinton could compel Valenti to dig up Vince Foster to Clinton could once again kill him with his penis while Matt Stoller took care of his Arkansas drug running operations.
I have this theory--could just be wishful thinking--that in about fifty years, when the politics of it all don't matter so much anymore, people will look at what the Clinton administration accomplished and weigh it against how Clinton behaved and wonder why so many people were lining up to defend him.
Likewise, they will look at the enemy we are facing today in radical Islam and they will look at Bush's tough stance and be amazed at the opposition he faced from the very same people.
History will sort it all out. Eventually.
Scott: You really have a poor humor sensor, obviously caused by your political opposition to me. You post on your blog about me is terribly written too. Anyway, trying to paint me as a big right winger is really dishonest, if you want to talk about dishonesty. As I've said many times, I voted for Clinton twice, I voted for Gore, and I've voted for Feingold every time he's been up. So figure out some other lame accusation next time you're in the mood to tell me how all my observations are off, you third rate hack.
Marley, I'm not playing the victim. My response to the attacks is another attack: my opponents are political hacks who stooped to illiberal sexist slurs again and again in their eagerness to get me. What do you think about that? (Let me guess...)
I do admit, Ann is a bit free with the personal attacks:
quote: you post on your blog about me is terribly written too.
It's like you really get pissed and lash out. Relax, it's not such a big deal either way.
Victor: If I really wanted to attack Scott's poor writing, I'd ridicule it line by line in a front page post, and it would really, really hurt. You'd know the difference. These punches are pulled. I'm deleted a line in this and other comments here that would just characterize his writing, because it seemed gratuitously mean.
There was just a technical glitch in that other post, solved by republishing. I didn't change anything.
If I really wanted to attack Scott's poor writing, I'd ridicule it line by line in a front page post, and it would really, really hurt. You'd know the difference.
The understated menace of "The Divine Ms. Althouse."
Whatever your political history, you are now, for all practical purposes, a Bush follower.
A good example is your criticism of Bush's conduct during the Lauer interview.
Sure, you objected to the finger pointing and intimidation, but made no mention of the fact that he was doing so in defense of secret CIA prisons and programmatic torture.
You also don't seem to give a tinker's damn about warrantless surveillance, or the unprovoked, and disastrous, war of aggression... But the Lewinsky wounds are obviously still fresh.
All this back and forth in the various posts that have raised the ire of all these netroots (must not type 'u' instead of 'e') folks puts to mind this regular feature at Gawker (that other bastion of rabid rightwingers, just like Althouse!).
Blue States Lose, would be an appropriate tag for all these posts (if Prof. Althouse did tags, that is).
As far as podcasts go. I'd hate to see them go. This particular podcast illustrates the utility of voice communication when trying to establish nuance (or lack of nuance) in humor.
Each medium offers different strengths, and in the past, you've used each well and in different ways.
But, if you feel you are getting diminishing returns from the podcast, then let them lay fallow for awhile.
Also, I'd love to see some doodles and sketches again.
And finally, do any netroots loving folks have skin at all? They've gone beyond 'thin-skinned' and rather than having a small protective semi-permeable membrane covering their bodies, they seem to have an 'injury seeking' field emanating from their corpus.
Bizarre, just bizarre, and an utter waste of time. But, as a partisan libertarian leaning Republican, I say, keep it up folks!.
are we talking about breasts or talking about Bush and CIA prisons?
More recently the former, because that's where Ann owns the moral high ground.
My post wasn't clear though. I'm mostly interested in her claim of not being a hack in the service of the right wing, because it's so damn funny.
LOL I was waiting for someone to expose me as being far afield from my area of expertise.
I'm actually not especially optimistic that the Mets will get to the Series, because Pedro's first start back was so weak.
If they did, however, I do think it will be another Subway Series. The Yanks offense, with Abreu on board and Matsui healthy, is an absolute joke. Their pitching almost doesn't matter.
Each netroots commenter hereabouts, lately =
"The commenter who is so angry he/she cannot move. He/she cannot eat. He/she cannot sleep. He/she can just barely growl. Bound so tightly with tension and anger, he/she approaches the state of rigor mortis."
If David Lynch were to resurrect his cartooning career, I think we've found his new subject.
xwl -
That's actually a pretty accurate description of me. It may not be healthy, but it doesn't mean we're wrong, either.
who stooped to illiberal sexist slurs again and again in their eagerness to get me
Like "that's when I posed for/the Leader with my rack"?
Ann, I'm all for calling out when so-called liberals use sexism as an attack, but you've consistently ignored the sexist counter-attacks by your fans in the humonguous comment threads this topic has generated. Those muddy the waters of the valid points you've made.
Oh Derve, the clumsy, non-witty stuff isn't worth the time, is it?
The Yanks offense, with Abreu on board and Matsui healthy, is an absolute joke. Their pitching almost doesn't matter.
Those are famous last words. My money's on the pesky Twins and the Metrodome to thwart the Evil Empire. I suspect the Yanks'll go down as another of those powerhouse regular season teams that got exposed in the playoffs. (Like my poor Indians in '95.) But I hate the Yankees so naturally I'd be hoping for that. :)
Or, if not the Twins, either the Tigers or White Sox. Central has the best teams IMO. The Yankees are peaking right now, but that may be too early and the collapse of the Red Sox may harm them. I don't like the playoff chances of teams that don't have to battle till the last week for a spot.
Please keep podcasting!!!
Here's some feedback: your podcasts are great, wonderful, marvelous, etc... please don't stop!
I put you, lileks, and instapundit on the ipod and play them in the car... drive time juicyness!
Ann, I listen to all your podcasts and enjoy them. I think people are listening while they're out doing stuff and that's why you're not getting the comments and feedback you normally do. I'd be very disappointed if you stopped.
As for #65, from this day forth, Hillary will always be "Clintony" to me.
Anyone who links to Malkin, proud author of In Defense of Internment, yet seizes every opportunity to criticizesliberal bloggers is not really a moderate.
So now blogrolling someone is an implicit endorsement of all their viewpoints? Crap, I'll have to pare back my roll to. . . well, just to me, I guess.
And I suppose it doesn't matter that she criticizes conservatives too? Just by criticizing liberals, one cannot be a liberal on certain issues? That would be unfortunate.
Fen: Heh. Funny. It's the old "looking for heretics" thing again. Meanwhile, the conservatives are "looking for converts." It's damned obviousl which is the better strategy. And note that with respect to feminism, the left is so eager to claim sole possession of it that they define it narrowly (or incomprehensibly), turning as many people off as they can. The idea seems to be that if you don't agree with all their politics you're not allowed to call yourself a feminist. In the end, it doesn't matter that much. Liberals shouldn't own the term "liberal" either. I still think whatever it is I think. And I will blog -- and podcast! -- about it.
Thanks for the support for the podcast, btw, everyone.
I have to admit that - at the risk of validating one of these children the blog has attracted recently - I would rather like to hear Ann (or for that matter, any of the regulars) address the point that one of the, ahem, "guests" made above about Rudy Giulliani. Is there any inconsistency in making peace with Rudy's infidelity but not Bill's? Is it worse because of the office Bill held?
To my mind, infidelity and quickie divorce are THE threats to sanctity of marriage. It's why I will not treat a conservative who opposes homosexual marriage because of "the sanctity of marriage" yet who has had a divorce. In my case, I justify setting aside Newt Gingrich's behavior in the past because of pressing national need, but I recognize that there is an issue here which needs to be set aside (and in any event, my principle concern with Clinton was the perjury rather than the harm to feminist cause).
The nutroots should keep it up. To some extent, I agree with John in Nashville's observation that Ann's observation that she's not really interested in politics is rather hard to believe (the podcast makes a great case that you are disinterested; that you are making the argument at all stands against the proposition that you are uninterested), and it certainly seems true that Ann has gotten markedly less sympathetic to the Democratic party as the months have rolled by - in part, I suspect, out of a sensible sense of revulsion against that party's new agenda and the kind of people who write vastly amusing nonsense like "[w]e're gonna take this sucker [the Democratic party] back ... we can kick out the remnants of the DLC stain, in order to turn us back into a winning party again." If Ann is any indication, even the people who were misguided enough to vote for George McGovern first time around aren't going to make the same mistake twice.
The GOP isn't perfect, for the reason that Fenrisulven points out. But in politics you can't beat someone with no one. Right now, to be quite frank, I think the Democrats are a greater threat to America than is Al Queda.
Am I missing something? When did Prof. Althouse say something about the infidelity? I know it's been a long couple of comment threads, but I thought that her criticism of Clinton was not "consensual blowjobs" but sexual harassment in the workplace, accusations of rape, and innappropriate relationships with subordinates -- all things damaging to feminist causes such as drawing attention to sexual harassment.
All this is said with me not being a big fan of sexual harassment law. I just don't understand why everyone equates "Clinton harmed feminism by being a sexual predator" with "I am so offended he got a blowjob from an adult woman not his wife." It's the nuance, stupid.
Ann, please continue podcasting as you feel moved to do so. Don't do it because you feel you _should_ because commenters told you - I think that one must blog for oneself, to make blogging enjoyable and rewarding; and the same holds true for podcasting I assume. But don't stop podcasting because you think no one's listening. Surely iTunes tells you how many subscribers you have? And so what if it is less than one million - we can't all be Instapundit. Your podcast is my very favorite.
You must not stop podcasting. I quite like hearing your voice every week- it's especially comforting to listen to podcasts like yours when I have to accompany a member of my family to their regular bouts of chemotherapy and batteries of tests.
I would also agree with knoxgirl that many of us listen to the podcast while we're out doing things and while I often get brilliant ideas for comments about what you're saying, I tend to forget them by the time I get home. Anyway, if you have the urge to keep doing them, please keep doing them. There are many of us who have been listening since number one.
Ann,
You are a great drive-time companion! Since I'll never get to ride around with you in your Audi, the podcasts are a nice alternative. (I'd much prefer the Audi.)
Maybe you should sponsor a cruise with all your fans...
One big factor behind the opt-out revolution is the lack of mentors for women, once they've made it out of college. The guys will take younger guys out on their yachts, to balllgames, etc. Many, though not all, senior women are more apt to punish junior ones for retaining their femininity, not playing the same imitation-man, sycophantic game they needed to play to succeed. Apart from the issue of Bill Clinton, you may feel wittily condescending, calling Jessica out for not wearing a mannish button-down shirt, but guess what? It's that kind of attitude that keeps some of the two-thirds of women graduating from my top-ten law school out of the profession, ten years later.
Octaglore: You're completely inside your own head on that one. That's not about me at all. You're just making crap up about me. I don't appreciate it.
Ann -- I'm certainly not suggesting that this is your conscious motivation. But I quote: "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?"
Clearly, you're offended or upset by women who dress in a way that's really quite standard these days in most business environments. And based on your comment above, if you saw someone dressed that way, in a legal environment whether academic or business, it's unlikely that you would reach out to her, I would think. I hardly think that's projecting any of my own issues. I believe that you don't think this is about you. But your comments, and tone, say otherwise.
Octaglore: That's just stupid ideation on your part and the fact that you start it with "clearly" just underlines the fact that you lack any interest in getting things straight. The simple fact is that she was going to lunch with the ex-president, who is also a man known for his sexual weakness. In that situation, the decision to wear a tight T-shirt, with no jacket, and to stand in front of him and pose like that is significant. Exactly what it means is open to speculation, but it was legitimate to write about it, considering that she has made herself a public figure and has put herself into the public sphere with a picture on the internet, posing with an extremely important political figure.
Another vote for continued podcasting. I've listened to every one!
As to Clinton's transgressions, let's not forget the administration's use of the "nuts and sluts" defense. That really was despicable.
Ann -- my confidence about my position doesn't underline anything beyond simply that. One could argue that your need to throw the word "stupid" into the mix, on the other hand, underlines my original point.
Why is the decision to do without a jacket and stand at an angle significant? Could be the room temperature, or the need to fit others into the shot (like the woman in red and black, who'd be sqeezed out if Jessica were not at an angle). Six others in the photo are not wearing jackets, and at least five others are at a similar angle.
Your statement "Jessica: I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself)" takes your comments out of "analysis" into the territory of spitefulness. And if it's not "clear" that this attitude wouldn't mark you as great mentor material, I'm not sure what is.
No, it wasn't spiteful. It was mocking. I was laughing at her for bringing up the subject, which she did. She volunteered that she thought she was pretty, which no one had said. I felt like laughing at that. It's not spiteful. I'm not getting back at her for anything done to me. It's a very standard thing to laugh at someone for: bringing up the fact that they think they're pretty. My issue with her was entirely about her voluntary behavior, which I think she should just own up to. Instead she's chosen to say I'm just a woman and I happen to have breasts so Althouse must be a terrible person. Sorry, I'm still laughing at that nonsense. I'd put together a good post ridiculing the whole circus, including slams at dishonest dimwits like you, but I just don't have the time. Not yet anyway.
Ann, maybe the word you've been searching for, all along, is "burqua." Maybe what you really want is for the so-called feminists like Valenti to cover-up around men, particularly predatory males like Mr. Clinton.
Think of the heads you'd turn if you yourself posed in a burqua! C'mon, give it a try, get a burqua, snap some pics, and post them here! Then challenge Valenti to a cover-up-off!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा