I don't mind an intense, verbal fight about ideas, but this wasn't that. This was, every time you expressed a substantive idea, the answer was, essentially, "Stop looking at my breasts." (I'm picturing an SNL sketch based on that concept, and like the usual SNL sketch, it goes on way too long.)
So, yeah, well, just about the last thing on the face of the earth I'm interested in today is breasts. I'm sure some readers feel that nothing could ever get them to the point where boobs are boring. Me, I'm at the point where boobs are so boring that everything seems boring.
But I did want to put up a post before I get out of here and go try to reignite my interest in the world.
On the subject of blog comments, Dr. Helen has this post, about how people went too far in the comments after she wrote something on the subject of women, here. A woman had lashed out with sudden, physical violence against a man who'd been trying to pick her up in a bar. Her husband blogged about it, and the commenters there cheered. Dr. Helen said -- aptly -- that if the sexes had been reversed, we'd be vilifying the man. I can't help noting that when Helen's husband Glenn Reynolds linked to that post about the bar-fightin' woman -- with its photo of a woman wielding a baseball bat -- he also linked to me and said "This cluebat is actually even scarier than this one." Hey, use words, kids. It's scarier.
Ah, well, the commenters themselves are doing what they can with words, but they are just boring the hell out of me.
Not all the commenters, of course. There is a regular group of commenters here that's quite fabulous. They're in amongst the tedium in yesterday's thread. Try to find them. They're really clever. The prize goes to XWL for calling it "a tempest in a C-Cup."
ADDED: Glenn says: "[F]eminism has become nothing more than a subset of the Democratic Party's activist base.... It's all about supporting the right people politically, even if it turns you into a groper's support group. Which was, of course, the point of Althouse's post." Indeed.
Well, phony feminism, anyway. There is a real feminism to be revived, but it must put feminism first, and let the political chips fall where they may.
IN THE COMMENTS: XWL points out that I should have said he won the booby prize. Oh, it's so terrible to miss a perfect wisecrack opportunity like that! But a really nice thing is that the comments here have a much higher concentration of regulars compared to yesterday's slugfest.... Ah, hey, I can daydream again! I'm picturing a slugfest consisting not of brutish humans punching each other, but slugs having a nice party.
I'm doubtlessly influenced by my long, head-clearing walk, the last quarter mile of which took me through throngs of Wisconsin folk -- all in red T-shirts -- finishing up the tailgate parties, and slogging sluggishly over to the stadium. Stay tuned for pics.
UPDATE: Damn! I can't upload my pictures. Flickr is suddenly telling me I've used 100% of my bandwidth for the month, when just yesterday it had me at 12%. Has something gone haywire over there?
पोस्ट्स
१२१ टिप्पण्या:
Professor: Are you looking at my crotch? You are, aren't you? You're looking at my crotch!
That's the stuff, Ann. Always make the breast of a bad situation.
The comments have gotten tiresome, to be sure. But that there are 403 of them...and counting...stuns me. That number is about one-hundred more than visit my site each day!
The blog in question has gotten a ton of traffic it never would have gotten apart from the attention that you and Glenn have called to it. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have engaged in this little debate. Feminists who appear to cater to sexual objectification, as this blogger seems to do on her site, should be called to account. But the blogger who got linked in this little verbal melee is probably dancing in celebration.
Mark
But the blogger who got linked in this little verbal melee is probably dancing in celebration.
But is she dancing topless?
You got 400 comments and a lot of attention because you wrote some things that were exceedingly dense. Live with it.
I love these blogfights. It's the internet equivalent of "I'm not touching youuuuuuuuuu..." in the back of the car.
A woman had lashed out with sudden, physical violence against a man who'd been trying to pick her up in a bar. Her husband blogged about it, and the commenters there cheered. Dr. Helen said -- aptly -- that if the sexes had been reversed, we'd be vilifying the man.
John Scalzi (whose wife is the woman concerned here) has since explained that there's actually a lot more in the story than just "creepy come-on" => "massive retaliation." He hasn't actually explained what it was (his wife's entitled to her privacy, after all) but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near as bad/hypocritical as it looked after blogs picked it up and began analysing it on the basis of a few glib lines in his original blogpost.
More cowbell!!
I agree, it quickly degenerated into a mudfest, with Ann getting a lot of the mud. I think that it was an interesting exercise in friviality, which we all probably need once in awhile.
My hope though is that most of the new posters don't stick. Part of allure of this site is that Ann keeps it (ulmost always) at a very high level. Personal attacks and hijack attempts are typically soundly policed. And that works for most of the regulars - and indeed, it is interesting to watch how an occasional one gets discplined once or twice, and then becomes a valuable participant.
I have to admit; when I first saw this post I was a bit shocked. (But not because of the picture) Normally this blog is rather strident on feminist issue’s. To see one of its more regular contributors standing alongside the poster boy of misogyny (with no reservation and even beaming pride) struck me as embarrassing.
To that end, Can anyone recall the name of the Clinton adviser who was sent out to defend Bill early on.. she was a proud feminist of integrity – she is actually related to Barney Frank (She lets herself age naturally, has grey hair and glasses) And her defense was one of the low points in feminism. She was made a fool of and it showed – For the life of me I cant remember her name, or find it through a Google search?
Please Help?????
You've achieved mythic status: Ms. Valenti called you [or your blog] "The Althouse" over at Dr. Helen's blog.
Cross my heart.
I have to admit I was disappointed at the level of discourse regarding boobygate.
I am sure that I may have contributed to it in some way and for that take responsiblity and I am sorry. I did think the entire episode was rather boring.
Besides I would much rather discuss more important issues like who is going to win Project Runway (I am not being sarcastic, I actually really care).
I agree with "Bruce Hayden" the attraction to Ann's site is generally civil discourse, from diverse individuals, with people listening (love that word) instead of ranting.
If this blog did not contain a more mature discourse and began to degenerate to the level of yesterday it would be a loss for many of us. If that type of communication "yanks" (in Sandy Berger's vocabulary) your chain there is plenty of it out there.
Overall, I think 2 mountains were made over a mole hole-is that right? I wanted to be witty but I may have not used this correctly.
Lastly, as a gay man (I think I say that to everyone of my posts, I don't generally introduce myself this way in a business or personal setting) I do like and respect woman's boobies, but I am also tired of boobies.
I think it's worth looking at a quote that Glen pointed to (I also posted this on That Other Thread):
"Feminism died in 1998 when Hillary allowed henchlings and Democrats to demonize Monica as an unbalanced stalker, and when Gloria Steinem defended Mr. Clinton against Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones by saying he had merely made clumsy passes, then accepted rejection, so there was no sexual harassment involved. As to his dallying with an emotionally immature 21-year-old, Ms. Steinem noted, ‘Welcome sexual behavior is about as relevant to sexual harassment as borrowing a car is to stealing one.’"
--Maureen Dowd, NYT column, 10/4/2003
This reminds me of this blog's earlier epic fight with Pajamas Media, right down to the ridiculously angry, self-righteous, first-time commenters indignant that a law professor would write such, nasty, nasty things about their personal heroes.
I actually hope a few of the newcomers do hang around though - this is an excellent blog with some exceedingly good regulars. Perhaps a few of them will stick around long enough to see that.
Fitz: Are you referring to his older sister, Ann Lewis, deputy director of Clinton's re-election campaign?
Twice well cited, reader_iam.
I stand by my comments in that last post: boobs are boring a priori and any man that would get invited to a luncheon with Bill Clinton because of their partisan blog has a small penis.
The commenters who came from FistingFeminists blog (or whatever it's called) to leave their little droppings won't hang around here. The male ones (who think it's ok to call a woman "cunt" and "bitch" and "whore" in defense of feminism) will crawl back over there and jerk off to the NC-17 rated vituperation of "empowered" women, desperately ingratiating themselves in the futile attempt to get laid. And the female commenters from over there will go back to their regular jeremiads against the evils of "conservatards", their chicken dinners with groping, corned-beef colored politicians, and their amusingly provincial notion that swearing alot and tit-jiggling is an "empowering", transgressive strategy.
Later White House Communications Director Lewis?
Ann, you were so clear in your intent, as you pointed out in the first thread:
...my whole original point was that I'm disgusted by bloggers who gush about how "honored" they are to be in the presence of Clinton
Indeed. Your complete lack of partisanship in this matter is evidenced by the similar disgust you expressed in your post about several right-wing bloggers who gushed over Bush in their meeting with him recently.
I'm getting misty-eyed nostaligic for the good old days of bra-blogging.
She was (is? don't know) involved in HILLPAC and Friends of Hillary much more recently.
Reader Jam, thanks for your snippet on Maureen Dowd's article on Clinton.
What many conversatives seem to forget is Dowd is an equal opportunity offender.
The only reason so many conversatives hate Dowd now is because of her editorials regarding Bush Jr. She has stated she goes after him now because he is the one in power.
When Clinton was in office she decimated him in almost every editorial.
Also, Dowd, has spoken and written about her respect and admiration for Bush Sr.
I would have commented yesterday, but breasts just don't do it for me.
Boston 70: She's "Reader I am", as in "I think, therefore I am."
She'd say, "I read, therefore I am."
Ruth Anne, Thanks for those memories.
Favorite insight from that highly entertaining and informative thread of yesteryear:
Simon Kenton said...
...But there's a parochialism of time as well as culture; each generation is the first that ever discovered sex, and each generation is amazed and somewhat disgusted that its parents and grandparents, solely by inference, must have done it.
Palladian: I like your style.
Meade: We'll always have Rick's.
[RLC's]
You insulted her, insulted her looks, implied she was a slut, claimed you were the real feminist, and then you got tired of the comments?
I wonder why?
You make me sick.
Welcome, Whetstone, (I lie).
Yes, Ruth Anne, a place where our patriotic songs could freely be sung and no one ever quite finished his drink.
Golden days they were.
Meade: I wish I didn't love you so much.
I like imagining the process that the FistingFemmys go through when they come over here to defecate in the comments section:
"Let's see... condescension, insult or indignant outrage? Hmm... condescension seems a popular choice for lefty commenters, and nothing wins people over to one's viewpoint like condescension. But insulting Ann might be more fun; after all, I haven't been able to call a woman a "cunt" ever since I started going to Burning Man. Indignant outrage seems more serious in tone, but since I can't write very well, it might be too hard to pull that off. Hmm... I think I'll go with a 50/50 mixture of condescension and insult. Better sign in with my nifty Blogger troll name..."
5 minutes pass, as commenter tries to remember the password for their Blogger account, set up to leave a nasty comment in the middle of the night while drunk two years ago
stinkcanon69 said...
its ok Anne, well forgive you for being stupid haha not relly ur commenters are brownshrit twats how could u become a law professor??? rethug dickheads!!!
1:18 PM, September 16, 2006
The commenter smiles and leans back in his chair. "There, ha ha, that'll show 'em!
I won a prize?
Woohoo!
Oh, I just won the Booby Prize, oh well.
pretending not to understand the point.
Welcome back to the politics of 1998-99.
In fact, welcome to "talking points" politics in general, in which political spokesperson are trained -- by professionals -- in how to avoid answering valid questions, first by making it seem like the questioner has asked something inappropriate or foolish; and then to repeat their pre-fabricated statement.
Some blogs, like this one, successfully bring political discourse back to what it should be ideally -- an exchange of ideas in which the most rational and considered opinion prevails, regardless of which party, politician, judge or pundit comes out on the losing end.
But sometimes, in the face of literally dozens of people who insist on characterizing a rational position as evil or neurotic, you get worn out from repeating yourself to make sure your point of view is being understood.
It probably should have dawned on Ann and some of the regulars here that Feministing's Marching and Chowder Society wanted to obfuscate your point, not engage with it. They recognized your point as a threat, and their first and only response was to kill it through any means necessary. They don't even seem like they realize what they're doing is intellectually and morally corrupt. They've been trained, perhaps by their college professors, in this basically a-rational technique and obviously think it's an enlightened form of argument. It is the corruption of political partisanship into a kind of unquestioning tribalism.
As a means of persuasion, arguing this way is totally ineffective. But it is a frighteningly effective way to enforce conformity within the group, because it makes the person comforming feel smart and with-it to see their peers calling their enemy names like "bitch" and accusing them of having dirty minds.
I so despise this blue state/red state crap. I want to live in a world in which a liberal is free to embrace a conservative idea and vice versa, based on a rational assessment of how the idea would apply to a situation. But yesterday's thread illustrates how much damage the corrupted political discourse of the 1990s has wrought.
Yesterday, it was about something kind of comical -- a girl displaying her breasts to Bill Clinton. But the quality of much debate about serious subjects, like war and fighting terrorism, is no different and no more enlightening.
XWL: Congrats, man. LOL!
Ruth Anne: We said no questions.
Oops, sorry, that's your line.
Well, depressing and sophomoric that thread may have been, but it did set a record. 400+ comments and an instalanche to boot, and all you can say is "of all which past, the sorrow only stays"?
When I dropped by early in the thread, it seemed to have taken on a distinct flavor of boobs obsessing about boobs -- sort of a bad boob-tube level of discourse (cable division, of course, given the R rated material) -- while wholly missing the point of the thing. It was too long and tiresome to follow along, or to skim through it all today. Neither those doing the obsessing, nor the object of the obsession, was particularly interesting.
It seems that the point of the photo that got the whole thing going was, at least in part, to make a joke of Clinton's "issues." If those who supposedly hold those feminist principles dear choose to reduce them to a joke, what are we to make of the jokesters and the supposed principles? It all seems reminiscent of a very old profession ....
Variation on Kafka via Philip Roth: Ann A. awoke one morning to find that the whole world had become a giant boob, staring at her like a dull eyeball . . .
Ruth Anne Adams said...
I'm getting misty-eyed nostaligic for the good old days of bra-blogging.
Ruth Anne: just plain bragging for short?
Sipp - whose fault is it that women have to think twice how they are percieved when they stand in front of President Clinton?
Once for each breast?
(Sorry, my reaction to this sort of thing is to become extremely silly.)
You call someone a whore, and when she and others object you say "she was wearing a short skirt, she had it coming!"
And then you proclaim with some sort of moral weariness that the commentary you get in response lacks willingness to engage in substantive discussion of serious ideas.
I'm sure that date rapists everywhere appreciate the validation. Be sure to let them know you're available as an expert witness ....
Amba: In the Althouse vein, it all kind of reminds me of this scene from Woody Allen's "Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex..."
You call someone a whore
Where and when, specifically, using the precise term you just used, did that happen?
One would at least hope that you would have the decency to retract your claim that "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?", which is not only ludicrously implausible but has already been contradicted by several people who were actually there. But I realize this would be hopelessly optimistic.
reader_iam,
there is no time or place where althouse said the specific term ("whore") that i used.
i was not qouting her, i was characterising her commentary. in the future, i'll try to avoid the appearance of attribution if that's not what actually happened. (using a construction such as "essentially said" or "sounded like you were saying" instead).
as for the fairness of the characterization, i'd point to this snippet as representative:
"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?"
which is from this thread: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/09/lets-take-closer-look-at-those-breasts.html#115835155768744111
my point here is that althouse seems to be claiming that jessica's objection to someone else's focus on her (jessica's) appearance doesn't deserve to be taken seriously unless jessica stops 'posing.'
which is pretty close to saying that she doesn't deserve to be taken seriously until she learns some modesty.
it's also an irony to me that althouse can claim that jessica has not been sufficiently strident in bashing clinton for his victimization of lewinsky, and yet obviously hold such low esteem for lewinsky herself.
regards,
r
Mike Griswald: "Your complete lack of partisanship in this matter is evidenced by the similar disgust you expressed in your post about several right-wing bloggers who gushed over Bush in their meeting with him recently."
That would make sense if you knew that I read those "right-wing bloggers." I never saw those posts, so my nonreaction means nothing.
Derve: I think there are questions of proportionality that matter. If you go into a crowded bar, by choice, it's an overreaction to slam your arm into the throat of someone who's acting like a drunken lout, which isn't nice, but it is predictable. You can yell at him or push him away, but you couldn't knife him. By contrast, if you are at home and someone breaks in, there's nothing normal about that. The appropriate response is different.
Scott: I stand by my description. I challenge you to look at the picture and try to assume the same stance Jessica is in. If you do that honestly, you'll discover that she is bending backwards quite a lot. Do I expect you to admit it? No. Of course I don't. Just like I don't expect you to answer the serious issues raised in my post. Demonstrate that you aren't a political hack. I don't think you can.
What a sad pathetic thing it is for women (and men) who would like to be considered feminists to so enthusiastically run interference for Bill Clinton.
Leaving aside the boobery, what's the deal with the Pope apologizing for quoting a text?
Should I Pope-blog? Are you folks bursting with popinions and just waiting for the right post to let loose?
daryl,
1.) i wasn't qouting jessica but stating my own independently arrived at opinion. if jessica herself felt this way, i'd have to say she was justified.
2.) it's interesting that you just said that jessica had no reason (other than attention seeking) to claim having been called a whore -- and then proceed to imply that it would be okay to say that she "looked like" one, because this is not a factual claim that she is one.
3.) you here further imply that jessica did 'look like' a whore.
and you're assailing my logic here? take a class.
Crap, showed up late and missed another party. While it would be interesting to comment on our (meaning Americans in general) rapidly declining ability to poke fun and take a joke, with a sidebar discussing the fact that if mocking the composition of a photograph is now considered out of bounds, then we can close up shop on SNL's Weekend Edition, most college newspaper's captions, and about half of Dennis Miller's career, that's not my schtick.
So instead I'll quote from an unreleased Violent Femmes song:
36-24-36
see a girl walkin' down the street
just the kind of girl that I'd like to meet
it ain't her hair, her clothes, her feet
somethin' much more discreet
now I ain't loud baby I ain't proud
I just want what I'm not allowed
movin on up & help myself
do a world of good for my mental health
36-24-36
"The immense tiresomeness is actually undermining my will to blog this morning."
Oh call the waaaaambulance. You asked for it. What, you can dish it but you can't take it?
"What a sad pathetic thing it is for women (and men) who would like to be considered feminists to so enthusiastically run interference for Bill Clinton."
what a sad pathetic thing it is for a woman who'd like to be considered a feminist to have to hide her ad-hominem attacks on another woman ... behind a man.
Yes, a hostile environment can sap the will to blog as well as the will to comment. If anyone can solve the condundrum of maintaining open comments and civility at the same time, it would be Ann, and I wish her luck in forging new blogic ground.
I didn't read the Jessica thread but agree with the phony feminism statement. With apologies to Golda Meir, I will venture that when feminists learn to love women more than they hate Republicans, they can call themselves feminists.
"Should I Pope-blog? Are you folks bursting with popinions and just waiting for the right post to let loose?"
Yes..Yes...Yes..!!!!!!
The NYT Times editorial this morning were over the top (considering the context and scope of Benedicts comments)
It’s timely and serious and involves all the substantive opinions NOT reachable in this current breast flap. It involves Islam, Christianity, Secularism, The culture war, has been widely reported on and has ramifications in the war on Terror.
Please Pope-it-up …it’s a discussion worth having and one I will join in.
Ah, yes. I love my generation's ability to couch any sort of vapidity in "irony" and call it genius.
Just chiming in to let you know that you're coming across as a real cunt and kind of stupid to boot, miss outhouse. sorry about your issues with other people's beauty. must suck to be so easily threatened.
But I thought "cunt" was empowering.
As far as the slugfest Prof. Althouse suggests, GO SLUGS!.
Is there a corollary to Godwin's law that if you resort to a Jerry Springerian "You jus' jellus!" you've lost the argument?
To my opponents whose sexist slurs I've declined to delete: You've proven your anti-feminism. I thought you were political hacks using feminism as a means to an end, but then you stopped even bothering to do that, because you couldn't resist the sexist slurs. I could have cut the comments to this thread long ago and deleted anything I wanted, but I decided to let you have the rope to hang yourselves, which you did enthusiastically. Thanks for making it so flat-out obvious.
Parry: If you think you're raising a new issue, you are sadly mistaken. Like many people here, you're falsely characterizing what I've said. I'm not goint to respond to that. My opponents have been stomping and crying here for more than a day, basically trying to distract attention for the real issue, which you plainly fear, and everyone can easily figure out why. I'm not going to take the time to respond to people, because it's obvious that you folks are involved in denial and making a smokescreen.
To anyone else: If I don't answer you, you can assume you've added nothing new or distorted. My answer to all that is obvious.
But I can't resist saying it one more time: I'm just amazed that people who wanted to present themselves as feminists went ahead and said the most sexist, misogynistic things.
Looks like Jessica finally answered the Big Question over at Dr. Helen. She says:
I don't see anything wrong with going to a lunch meeting with Clinton, nor do I think it clashes with my feminism.
Well, we have our answer, such as it is. And the comfort of knowing she richly deserves all the ridicule she has received over the last 24 hours or so. She could at least attempt a serious statement of the reasons for taking such a position.
The truth is, she can't, without admitting that she's ignoring the stories of the women who were brave enough to speak out about their treatment at the hands of President Clinton.
Here's why the perky girl, who claims to be a militant, in your face feminist, who complains about every tiny perceived slight to womankind on her blog (read it, the picayune problems she addresses is really hilarious) while missing a huge, very important fact that hanging out and celebrating Clinton brings up:
In the bad old days, when a boss propositioned you for sex, then punished you when you refused, or when a ditzy secretary started screwing the boss and got raises and promotions over harder-working, less attractive or less whorish co-workers, they had 2 choices- live with it or quit (unless they had the option of also giving the boss ass for cash).
With the dawn of the Feminist there was a 3rd route: justifiably sue his ass for sexual harassment. Well, Paula Jones tried that, and the feminists, instead of backing her, not only weren't just neutral, they were antagonistic- they attacked her, savaged her, insulted her and slandered her. And in so doing betrayed the entire movement and all its basic tenets. And in the end, for what? A failed president, the first liberal since Carter, and in 8 years he accomplished virtually zero for the liberal cause. All they did manage to accomplish was to save his presidency, and for what?
That's why its disquieting for you to preen and pose with your busts so proudly outthrust front and center in what is supposed to be a pic of Clinton with a group of liberal bloggers. You'd have to be blind to miss the irony and symbolism of Clinton peering around those perky pups.
And the sad part is the girl seems so wrought up taking the whole thing personally she's missing the big picture.
Psssst, tiggeril -- the Pope didn't apologize for what he said. The Vatican apologized for the fact that some people didn't understand it and so "found offense", and also politely suggested they pull their heads out of their asses and go back and read it again.
It was the best non-apology apology I've ever read.
jodytresidder: I've never read a British tabloid in my life. Is there any compelling reason I should start now?
Re the topic at hand, I wonder how these 20-something hotties will feel 15 or 20 years from now when they've married and have children of their own. Don't they realize that the Internet has an infinite memory? "Mommy, did you ever have a blog? may be an even more troubling question than "Mommy, did you ever take drugs?"
It's just embarassing.
it's also an irony to me that althouse can claim that jessica has not been sufficiently strident in bashing clinton for his victimization of lewinsky, and yet obviously hold such low esteem for lewinsky herself.
MORE obviously than the support for Lewinsky that she expressed in this comment, this morning (10:42 a.m.), from That Other Thread?
I_am: I was never against Monica Lewinsky, and I don't like the way she was vilified. I don't like the way Paula Jones was treated either. A lot of that was sexist, portraying women as nutty and slutty (as had been done to Anita Hill before). I had a problem with Clinton and what he was doing to the progress that had been made about sexual harassment (though I signed the lawprof letter against impeachment). And I subsequently had a problem with feminists who explained away the problem. Suddenly, everything people "got" back at the time of Anita Hill and the Thomas confirmation was forgotten, and the political bias built into feminism became glaringly apparent. This is something I'm going to keep holding people accountable for, even if they try to vilify me. And those who won't face up to this problem and prefer instead to call me names are phony feminists in my book. So, yeah, I side with Monica.[Emphasis added.]
In response, by the way, to this comment of mine (10:17 a.m.):
I take issue with the definition of "intern" as a code word meaning "dirty whore." In Ann's ORIGINAL post, I think it was directed as a reference to Clinton, and to the eye of the photographer (who, assuming he/she was a pro, is paid to take into account context etc. etc.). Maybe she didn't take enough into account how the way she approached the topic would be received by the woman who happened to be front and center and arranged--again, presumably by the photographer--as she was arranged. But I don't think the original intent was to whack Jessica, at least that's not what I thought when I saw the first post, which was before the second went up.
The second post is more problematic, I agree, though I do get the point it's making. Even then, though, I think the "dirty whore" part is pure projection, or, to perhaps put it better, a response pulling from the reaction that many people had to Monica back in the day (blaming her, juding her actions as bad while letting Clinton off the hook). (Emphatically NOT MY REACTION, by the way, back then) Unless one can establish that, in fact, Ann had that reaction to Monica back then (or now), I don't think you can make a case for automatically assuming that FOR ANN "intern" is code word for "dirty whore," or whatever.
Joan- Thanks for the clarification. The headlines at Yahoo! and at the BBC site insinuate totally different things.
Ann, sometime ago, there was an absolutely hilarious thread on this blog concerning bad prose. Actually you asked for commenters giving their versions of bad prose.
If I remember right, the subject was something to do with Karl Rove and his fancy car. I've tried to look through your archives, but was unable to figure out the place in the archives. Somebody help me here. I think it's time to do it again.
I'll start:
Bill Clinton, flush with sexual desire, leaned over to get a better view of her ample breasts. "Oh, Bill, you rascal!" She exhaulted...
I like slugs, they are cute and tasty.
Should feminists have discussions with Bill Clinton? I don't know enough about the issue, or enough details of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.[Emphasis added.]
Waitaminute! Whoa. Is this partly what this is all coming down too? A lack of knowledge of recent history, both political AND of a split in feminist point of view? On the part of feminists, and people interested in politics.
Oh. my. mother.
Then again, maybe there were some sordid details of the scandal that change all this and I am not aware of them. I apologize for that if that is the case.
I appreciate that apology. So I will reply to you seriously. Yes, there were sordid details of that scandal and several others involving Bill Clinton directly related to women. Yes, it changes all that. At least from the point of women who take issue with how organized, political feminism dealth with Bill Clinton then and dealing with him now.
I'd give you the names and history, but that's a lot o' space, and almost nobody here would thank me for it. I'd send you back to the other thread, where there are multiple references, but you've already said it's too long to read, and I can't say as I blame you (having read them all myself).
So how about this: Scroll up here to my quote from Maureen Dowd at 12:11 p.m. Google the names of the women mentioned there. Add Juanita Broaddrick to the mix. (And Gennifer Flowers, except that in her case, it's more about how she was treated when she came forward; I don't believe she herself ever claimed her relationship with Clinton was other than consensual. Don't quote me, though, I could be wrong about that).
Then think a little bit. Doesn't mean you'll change your mind, but it might give you some understanding of what others are talking about.
MORE GENERAL COMMENT with regard to the last: You know, how old are most of the people commenting about this? Could it be that significant numbers don't actually even have a grasp of the whole picture (not saying they'd then agree, just asking if they have have a grasp of the complexity of the issues).
And--for the love of Mike!--what's wrong with their mentors? Those who DO know better, but because of the compromises they decided were important to make (their prerogative), decided to give a bye to Clinton anyway? Don't they feel any sort of obligation to share facts and a more nuanced overall picture, even if they then, of course, are going to strongly argue for their own approach?
Wow. Just wow. Shame on them.
You know, the '90s are not ancient history, not in terms of political history or feminist history, or any other kind.
I'd expect even someone in his or her '20s to have a grasp of even that happened a mere 10-12 years before. And if his or her forte is supposed to be a particular area, then I think it's reasonable to expect they'd have a grasp going back at least two or three decades, even if it was "before their time." Sheesh, I was a young kid when the splits in earlier feminism started taking place in the '60s, but I sure was able to cite chapter and verse by the time I was in college. Because feminism was a passionate interest of mine, and I wanted to know what had gone on, and what the hell I was talking about.
Please tell me what I am starting to think is wrong. Please?
reader_iam,
i didn't see the other post, thanks for pointing it out.
the qoute you offer shows ann condemning the idea that lewinsky deserved derision for her appearance or behavior, and offers some hope that ann does not herself conflate 'intern' with 'dirty whore'.
unfortunately for ann, there's little point in calling attention to the (supposed) similarity of jess to monica unless one were in fact intending that people conflate those two concepts.
(and let's recall that this all started when ann herself quickly agreed with commenters who made the comparison explicit.)
for ann to thereafter condemn the judgement about monica without expressing similar outrage over the same commentary made about jessica just seems like an after-the-fact attempt to deny that she intended what she obviously intended. (dare i say it smacks of lip service?)
if ann wanted to have a discussion of the damage done by feminists appearing to give approval to bill clinton, she should have said just that, instead of calling attention to the physical features of one of the people involved.
it's kind of fatuous that ann avoids the obvious problem of her having called attention to jessica's rack by complaining that jessica (and her supporters) now keep talking about jessica's rack.
if she really wants to be have a serious conversation about something else at this point, she's going to have to start by apologizing for the original mistake.
regards,
r
But I'm not a feminist researcher... I am interested in feminist issues and have feminist convictions.
Me either. Me too.
vh:okihmigd
Sheesh, I've sure gotten some good ones in the last 24 hours. Who knew that the "ghost in the machine" has a sense of irony?
If y'all are gonna' call our good hostess a whore, you should address her with the proper title:
BERKLEY HOUSE WHORE.
Anything less is an insult.
So this really may have started with a misunderstanding of the original post due to lack of shared cultural reference.
Hmmm. About that photographer. How old was he or she? Maybe he/she didn't realize either how the pic might look in context of Bill Clinton.
The older women and men in that pic--they've made their peace and choices with regard to Bill Clinton and whether he helps or hurts more feminist ideals and the feminist cause.
But as for the others--including Jessica--maybe they actually don't know all of the background, or at least how everyone people can see it differently and still be feminists. Maybe they don't know how controversial and it was, and then haven't consciously thought about the implications before of appearing with him.
Whether they should or should not know, or have known, is a little bit beside the point.
Now I AM taken aback, for far different reasons.
Ann, could you give us your definition of feminism? This seems crucial to effectively addressing what I will term the can-one-be-a-feminist-and-support-Clinton issue.
Apologies if you've given your definition previously and I missed it.
Also, by all all means, correct my shorthand for the "real issue" underlying these posts if you think it imprecise.
thank you.
Sorry, Parry, my intent wasn't actually to pile on you, specifically.
Allright, I'm sorry I lack in knowledge of the scandalous affairs of foreign presidents (I'm not an American) that happened while I was in middle school.
I can understand that. But when people keep bringing something up, it seems to me it's a good idea to ask what the background for that is BEFORE commenting on one side. THAT SAID, THAT SAID, I do respect the fact that you actually asked. I think you might have been the only one who DIDN'T know who had the guts to do that.
So I'm sorry for having made you feeled piled on. I absolutely can see how my comments did that.
Parry_lost,
I hope that you're retiring from posting here due to weariness over repeating yourself, and a honest estimation that there are more enlightening places to spend your time.
Because it would be a shame if you were leaving with the thought that you'd taken up too much space saying what needed to be said: what Ann Althouse did *was* wrong, regardless of how many other wrongs she can find in the rest of the environment.
I hope to see your posts elsewhere in the blogosphere.
cheers, and kindest regards.
r
Parry: I stand by everything I wrote, which certainly includes some insults. But I'm not apologizing. I meant it. As far as what I said about the blog, I certainly stand by my observation that it openly tries to attract readers with images of breasts, and I continue to laugh at Jessica for acting like she doesn't know damned well what she's doing. And I continue to think people like you are chumps for defending her. She is what she is. I don't read her blog, so I don't know how much I'd approve of her brand of feminism, but I could easily see that she exploits breastage there, and the appearance of exploiting breastage right in front of Clinton is just too ridiculous. If it was unintentional, fine. I was willing to accept that assertion. But laugh it off. Don't protest like an innocent maiden whose honor has been outraged. You can't run a "fisting feminist" blog and tender complaints like that -- except in jest. Why are you carry water for her?
Well, I think--unintended or not--you spurred some important insights, at least for me. So I'm not happy to hear you'll never be back.
Perry said...
"On the other hand, Clinton's politics were probably closer to being feminist than those of any other president in recent memory. And he was a major figure in politics. Discussing such topics with him can thus pe productive."
All this smacks of "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
His transgressions against individual women destroyed anything you claim he might have done for the sex as a whole- the net result was a loss for champions against sexual harassment and a debasing of the entire cause to save a degenerate liar.
J. Peden: Ann got into a fight with defenders of Pajamas Media last year and one of them (can't remember which) dubbed her a "Berkeley House Whore."
Yesterday, it was about something kind of comical . . .
Many of the comments in this thread refer to the "regulars" and their reasoned, logical approach to debating ideas - and that tone has kept me a regular reader.
I lurk, unsure that I command the sagacity to actually POST - I consume (and use) financial information; I do not teach, and certainly not law.
I, for one, laughed out loud ("What?" from my wife) at the image before I read much of the text.
I am jaw-droppingly astonished at this vituperation.
C'mon, ladies, this is nothing more than a blogger's irony-catch-of-the-day. Heh.
OBTW, my wife the novelist, who owns two more advanced degrees than I, and makes rational decisions for herself better than most men, is the most feminine feminist I know, and has been for 26 years.
docweasel said...
"His transgressions against individual women destroyed anything you claim he might have done for the sex as a whole ...."
That seems a rather extreme claim. Can it be backed it up with evidence that constitutes something more than the claim itself?
I am not necessarily a Clinton defender, but I think Parry makes a good point. After all, so much of effective politics is about making a pragmatic choice from a limited set of options. Consequently, a feminist might view support for Clinton (even now) as political pragmatism.
I realize I am saying nothing profound here, and I am not saying I believe feminist support for Clinton is necessarily okay; I only meant to make a ready response to docweasel.
Delving into this deeper depends on what one means by a "feminist." I am still hoping for Ann's definition....
Amba and Ruth Ann -
I don't think bra-blogging is bragging. I vote for brogging for comments, which I envision something like this. You never know what you'll get when you reach up into the cave: flathead, snapping turtle, dervish, amphiuna, troll. Or perhaps like this, when you've caught one of them frozen in the lights, and lance it, in this case with a giggle.
rederik: "unfortunately for ann, there's little point in calling attention to the (supposed) similarity of jess to monica unless one were in fact intending that people conflate those two concepts."
The reason you're not getting the point is that Jessica and her defenders refocused the post on her. It was about Clinton. I object to something about him, and by reference to that, I object to feminists who defend and play up to him. The bloggers who went to that lunch fawned and slobbered over him, utterly laughably. That's the real point.
And as for your second post, saying I did something "wrong." No, I didn't. You should be ashamed of your distortions. Larding your comments with statements about how offended you are is just an attempt at distraction.
Ruth Anne Adams: "If y'all are gonna' call our good hostess a whore, you should address her with the proper title: BERKLEY HOUSE WHORE."
Ha, yeah, funny. That was from some LGF commenter when they were assuming I was a big lefty because I didn't toe some damned right-wing line.
Someone asked for my definition of feminism: I would say it is the commitment to the end of protecting fairness and equality for women.
Oh, I see Parry left, apparently before reading my response. I think he or she maxed out when confronted with rational argument. I totally don't see what "insults" of mine weren't deserved, and I'm guessing Parry couldn't back that up and did the old sign off. Lame!
docweasel said...Perry said..."On the other hand, Clinton's politics were probably closer to being feminist than those of any other president in recent memory. And he was a major figure in politics. Discussing such topics with him can thus pe productive." All this smacks of "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" His transgressions against individual women destroyed anything you claim he might have done for the sex as a whole- the net result was a loss for champions against sexual harassment and a debasing of the entire cause to save a degenerate liar.
The man wrecked the modern feminist movement. Is it better that he also actually cared about it? I can't see how. He was the person we counted on to do well. We gave him our votes. We got shit. And now you want to excuse him? And not just excuse him, fawn over him? I don't get it... other than to say this was never feminism at all, this was and is Democratic party politics. I was a Democrat back in those days, you should know. Now, I don't trust any politicians. I'm recommending political independence for feminists. Otherwise, you're going to get all tripped up and embarrass yourselves excusing characters like Clinton.
Ann Althouse said...
"[Feminism] is the commitment to the end of protecting fairness and equality for women."
and
"The man [Clinton] wrecked the modern feminist movement."
I agree with that definition. It shows perfectly why attempting to determine whether a feminist should or legitimately can support Clinton is difficult.
What is the support for the claim that Clinton wrecked the modern feminist movement? Is it self-evident from the Monica Lewinski and Paula Jones incidents?
What is the standard by which we should measure whether Clinton advanced the cause of fairness and equality for women? Should we determine whether the net effect of all of his actions for his entire life have resulted in a net loss or gain for women? That seems unrealistic but perhaps the only accurate way to make the determination.
ann,
you say:
" ...you're not getting the point [which] is that Jessica and her defenders refocused the post on her. It was about Clinton. I object to something about him, and by reference to that, I object to feminists who defend and play up to him. .... You should be ashamed of your distortions."
it's certainly possible that my own misconceptions about that photo had me 'missing the point' about your intentions.
judging by the reaction in much of the rest of the blogoshpere, i'm not nearly the only one who may have missed that point.
but the the fact that you can't see what was wrong with your response to those of us who had the 'misconception' isn't doing your cause much good, however right you may be.
which is more the shame.
regards,
r
rederik: "judging by the reaction in much of the rest of the blogoshpere, i'm not nearly the only one who may have missed that point."
Oh, bullshit. The reaction in the blogosphere is Democratic party politics, protecting their own, covering their ass. I stand apart from that and call it as I see it. Use your judgment. Think for yourself. You're not an idiot. Can't you see those are political partisans. You think they are all saying the same thing because they've independently reasoned to that point? Spare me!
daryl,
"I realize you think you have the moral high ground if this is about Jessica's private sex life rather than her public displays of politics, but that's not what Ann or her regular commenters were ever discussing."
you are right. i certainly never immagined that ann or her regular commenters were discussing jessica's public displays of politics -- becuase i've never seen the word 'politics' so widely employed as a euphemism for 'breasts' before.
r
ann,
"You think they are all saying the same thing because they've independently reasoned to that point?"
well, i don't actually see it as relavant whether they independently reasoned their way to such a reaction.
my point was that if you truly wanted to have a discussion about clinton, engaing jessica and the follow on crowd about the manner in which she was 'posing' for the camera would actually be counterproductive, even if you were right.
i'm going to leave this alone at this point, because i feel like i've made the point i was trying to make as well as i could.
thanks for considering it.
regards,
r
Rederik: It's relevant because you made the "everyone's saying it" argument. And I've already explained why I took a shot at Jessica. She played a completely phony "Don't look at my breasts" card. Her blog uses breasts to attract traffic very openly, and she is clearly calling attention to her chest, right under the nose of the ex-President. Come on, that's laughable. If you can't laugh at that, you're too grimly partisan.
And Bill Clinton's tie was totally pointing at his crotch. How obvious can you get.
dklittl: I'm going to keep blogging about whatever interests me. The people who are being vicious here, against whom I will defend myself, are trying to push me back and intimidate me from talking about politics. I don't like that it gets unpleasant either, but I'm not going to cede this ground to those who are willing to act like this. And I feel very strongly about not ceding the issue of feminism to people who see it as a subcomponent of Democratic politics.
Calling All Feminists: Your Chance To Change The Fate of 80 Million Women
What is the standard by which we should measure whether Clinton advanced the cause of fairness and equality for women?
Gosh, you're making it harder than it is.
I think it's reasonable to assume that the standard at least includes the following:
don't claim to take women seriously and care about their advancement in society, and then abuse, in various ways, women you come in contact with. Especially in situations where you are their boss and wield power over them.
If caught doing any of the above, don't allow a whole bunch of women to make idiots of themselves coming to your defense.
Oh, and don't rape anyone while you're at it.
Tiresome. Yes indeed.
You had no substantive critique. 1) No one CARES about bloody Clinton and his penis anymore; well, no one who isn't already rather unhealthily fixated in any number of ways 2) that wasn't even your point to begin with.
What happened was, Jessica wandered by, caught you in a "meow" moment and asked, rather graciously and openly, that you please knock it the fuck off; it's hurtful. Not only do you NOT back down or even go, "okay, out of line, moving right along," you up the ante and push back on her like any other two-bit bully:
"Why don't you defend yourself?"
What a question, eh?
and then relentlessly onto the tits, the tits, the tits; really, woman, one might start to think you have a bit of a lech for the woman yourself. Harassment, certainly, this is. Whatever it is: it is fucked.
"I AM ATTACKING YOU AND WOULD GREATLY PREFER THAT WE KEEP THE FOCUS ON YOU, BECAUSE ANY POINTING OUT OF -MY- PART IN THIS IS LIKE AN MORTAL ATTACK ON MY FRAGILE LITTLE EGO. I DON'T DESERVE SUCH TREATMENT! I'M NOT LIKE YOU! I DON'T LIKE PAIN! IT HURTS ME! C'MON, LET'S PLAY MORE!! GIVE ME SOMETHING ELSE TO WORK WITH SO I CAN -REALLY- GET MY TEETH INTO YOU! "DEFEND" YOURSELF! BECAUSE GODDAM DO I EVER LIKE BEING OFFENSIVE!"
...and now, NOW, the rest of the world calls you on your shit, and oh whine whine it's tiresome.
No: -you're- tiresome.
And hateful.
And vapid.
And a hypocrite.
And a misogynist.
And petty, and venal, and just generally awful.
And you have earned every one of these flames. With interest.
Deal with it. And be thankful that some people -still- aren't willing to go as low as you.
Well we can start with:
"Former President Clinton certainly advanced the liberty, safety, health, and economic interests of women. First, Clinton reversed the abortion gag rule on federally-supported domestic reproductive health services; this and collateral pro-choice appointments and prosecutions slowed the erosion of the right to abortion. Second, he signed the Violence Against Women Act into law. Third, he signed the Family and Medical Leave Act into law. Fourth, he supported increases in research spending on women's health issues and diseases. Fifth, although somewhat belatedly, he helped win an increase in the minimum wage (two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women).
Ann can try to raise indignation to Clinton's perceived crimes but I find that funny coming from a law blog. Here's a good start on the current administration: http://tinyurl.com/gx9xe. This is just the tip of the iceberg. For Ann to attack this young woman and then accuse everyone of missing her "high-minded" point is laughable. Former President Clinton has joined these left-of-center bloggers and has embraced the new media. He's a smart man who adapted and embraced the technology which is admirable. Although I don't always agree, I enjoy reading Feministing for it's fresh perspective; I read Althouse for views of a dim legal mind.
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the comments here and at Feministing, they have been most entertaining.
But let's be honest Ann, you are pissed because the Feministing girl is young and pretty and....well...your not so much. I don't mean that in the totally insulting way it sounds, but you are like a million other women who feel that with minimal make-up, page-boy type haircut and bland clothes they will be taken seriously. It is nearly impossible for you to accept that a woman can be taken seriously if she looks like a woman.
You brought up her tits, whipped everyone up in a frenzy and then claimed that everyone was “just boring the hell out of you” because you were called on the fact that you brought up her tits.
Your abrasive, shock-value, hyper-superior attitude/persona is no different than that of Ann Coulter. And from the way I see it, you're just stealing her act.
Y'all will have to forgive Ann. Her knuckles drag along the ground when she walks...
Say, Ann, you do this for fun?
As usual, Johnny Nucleo, above, nailed it. I must say I remain, if not mystified by the current political Zeitgeist, at least disappointed.
I am disappointed because, like Ann, I used to think of myself as a fairly progressive person, identified with the Democratic Party, and considered it the natural party of governance in this country. But the "rhetoric," if it can be called that, that has come from partisan Democrats in recent years is beyond belief. Now, I don't mind old-fashioned rock-'em sock-'em partisan attacks at the right time (e.g., "Poor George. He can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth...."), but the hate-filled slime that oozes these days leaves me wanting to take a shower. If things continue like this into November, I'll need two weeks in a spa.
This kerfluffle and the recent troubles here over the 9/11 miniseries have obvious hallmarks of an organized campaign. Some Democrats want to intimidate or at least tone down an influencial blogger. I've made a few half-joking remarks elsewhere about the possibility of robo-commenters or bots doing the dirty work: They are relentless; they take a few key words or phrases and distort them to fit a narrow range of talking points; they have an all-too-predictable obscenity-filled repotoire of insults; and they seem like they would fail a Turing Test, i.e, no human being on the other end. Actually, it's not very likely that anyone has to go to the expense of automating blog writing or commenting. There seem to be plenty of willing keyboard warriors, Turing Test failures or not. But where do they come from? Why are they appearing here at this time?
An election is coming up, and the blogosphere is increasingly important to partisan politics. It should come as no surprise that there would be organized efforts. Netroots and all that. I am really sorry, though, that this had to happen in the way it did. I mean, Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton's legacy? Give me a break.
I could vote for Senator Clinton in a heartbeat, because I happen to largely agree with her positions. But let's face it: Bill Clinton is Warren Harding with an I.Q. Why waste the effort on that clown? Does the Left really have that much invested in him? Now there is a great deal to be said for doing nothing, and Clinton certainly specialized in that, despite Peetyport's catalogue of "accomplishments," all of which any minimally competent President should have done. I had no real disagreement with any of Bill Clinton's policies, insofar as he had any. I just objected to Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton's sexual misdeeds symbolized much more than his just having a fling, despite the efforts at the time to paint it as "European" and somehow sophisticated
A personal story: My wife holds an advanced degree from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, one of a small number of schools that offer serious professional preparation for the Foreign Service and related fields. She worked in Washington for a time and enjoyed her work and the city. But she ultimately gave up the career she had gone to so much trouble to prepare for. Why? One of the reasons was the pervasive atmosphere of sexual harassment, even, or perhaps especially at the higher levels of the State Department and other agencies. Now my wife is Ann's age, so this was some time ago. We can hope things are different today. I have heard similar stories, though, from many women of a certain age. Some persevered. One, with similar training, has even become Secretary of State. But why must a woman have become a steel butterfly to succeed in Washington? One big reason was to simultaneously deal with and fend off the Bill Clintons of this world. The spectacle of so many "progressives" tossing aside every feminist principle and rushing to Clinton's defense still borders on the surreal.
I did not want to get too incensed writing this, but the very thought of him makes me want to go take that shower.
So, yes, I agree with Ann on this one. And no, I wouldn't mind another President Clinton. Maybe we'll have better luck this time.
Belledame: ""I AM ATTACKING YOU AND WOULD GREATLY PREFER THAT WE KEEP THE FOCUS ON YOU..."
That's supposed to represent what I was doing? You've plainly distorted the facts... oh, I'd say about 180°. I kept saying I wanted to talk about Clinton, not Jessice. So, is that your usual technique? Everything about your comment is twisted and ignorant and slurring. So you have absolutely zero credibility. I assume you're another dopey, inept political hack. And, like so many of the others, your words are crammed with sexism. Nice show.
I'm sure the Clintons love the fine support you and other loose cannons are giving them on the internet. Is this really what Peter Daou is working to achieve? Remember, Hillary Clinton needs moderates to like her. Hardcore Democrats showing their faith like this isn't going to help with that. This blog attracts moderate readers. Screetching at me is... well, it's pretty dumb.
Susannah: "But let's be honest Ann, you are pissed because the Feministing girl is young and pretty and....well...your not so much..."
Are you so ignorant about feminism that you don't realize that is a sexist argument? Ageist too. Apparently, you're such a partisan hack you don't even remember the purported values of the party you're trying to help.
I'm sure Hillary Clinton appreciates your nitwit support. I'd love to hear your analysis of her mental processes!
Theo Boehm said...
Say, Ann, you do this for fun?
........
If my post had audio, the sound you would here is me clapping wildly. I didn't quote this whole post, but, if you missed it, go back and find it.
Oh, I don't agree with everything he said, but I certainly appreciate hearing a non-partisian discussion of issues from someone who admits to a political preference. If more of us could do that ....
Bill Clinton's legacy? Please - at best he was a mediocre president. He COULD have been a great one, but his own personal demons - coupled with the willingness of others to cater to those demons - allowed him to focus on style over substance.
I would absolutely prefer an administration that promotes women on merit to high ranking positions than one that treats them as Clinton's administration did. Feminism is about more than a uterus.
Personal story - Near the end of the Clinton Administration, I attended a luncheon with other social service agency reps. One woman at my table - a committed liberal - surprised me by saying that she couldn't wait for a Republican administration. I assumed that she must be a McCain fan, but she said she didn't care who won.
Professionally she worked with the homeless. She said if a Republican won, people could stop pretending that homelessness didn't exist.
My summary of the Clinton/Feminist/Bra-ha-ha
1. Biggest Loser: Hillary The blogfest was intended to get left wing bloggers more in tune with Hillary (meeting was set up by Her internet publicist, not Bill's) in order to promote Hillary blog buzz. Instead, the public was again reminded about both what a world class cad and sleazy guy Bill is, and how many feminists sacrificed their principles and gender loyalty on the altar of Democratic party unity defending Bill on sexual harassment charges.
Oh, and a meeting with the "First Black President" in his "Harlem" office that was whiter than if it had been done at Lamont's Country Club in CT? bad PR, very bad.
2. Biggest Winner: Jessica Huge attention to her breasts and blog by people, mostly positive on the left, all over the blogosphere.
all in all Daou, a poor show for your client.
Derve: Thanks. Note that Friday's "closer look" post floated the theory that Jessica is a Karl Rove dirty trick.
Drill Sgt: Speaking of hurting Hillary, the attacks on me as a jealous older woman don't resonate too well with Hillary's interests. Nor does the weird support for the advantage of being younger and sexier.
Susannah said:
You brought up her tits, whipped everyone up in a frenzy and then claimed that everyone was “just boring the hell out of you” because you were called on the fact that you brought up her tits.
Actually I think that Victoria's Secret bra she was wearing brought those puppies up before Ann did. And I am certain Bill loved her for it.
Second Biggest Loser: Feminism, the cause Jessica alleges to support. Joust as it does black America no good to be seen as a captive of the DNC orbit, it provides Feminism, no gain to be seen as:
1. a captive of the DNC.
2. without principles
3. willing to accept workplace harassment, if the harasser is otherwise supportive of women. Packwood redux?
I've looked but can't find any references to whether the photo was staged, or not. Did someone place Jessica and her breasts prominently in the front row, or did she choose that spot herself?
We have not even covered ageism, but that's only because Jess doesn't blog in defense of age. Ironically, her allies are some of the first to invoke it themselves, failing to notice that she may have been strategically placed dead-on center of that pic to balance and round out the group of dowdy (middle-aged looking) types.
It is a luxury of the young(er) to be indulged with interpreting criticism regarding their immaturity or lack of knowledge from people 10-20 years older with "jealousy" of their youth.
Playing the "you're just jealous of meeeeeee because I'm young!!!!" card is old.
I'm surpassingly sick of this comments thread from yesterday, and I'm not even going to read all the commentary on other blogs. The immense tiresomeness is actually undermining my will to blog this morning.
Cause of the "immense tiresomeness"?
It makes one very weary to keep pretending you were right after having your bitchy catty comment so demonstrably flayed.
So the score now: Boobs - 502 comments, Spinach scare - 19. Talk about missplaced priorities!
Although I doubt Theo's self-professed progressiveness, I thought I would respond. President's Clinton's accomplishments can are detailed here: http://tinyurl.com/kd4ao. This is his legacy which you brush off and compare to the Republican Harding. However, they are something to marvel when compared to the current President. I also posted reasons why a feminist would still support President Clinton because Ann was confused on why her acrid attacks were misunderstood. Her reasoning was flawed (not unlike many lawyers) but Theo gleefully answers "all of which any minimally competent President should have done". I however list the how the current administration's policies have truly hurt woman. Should Theo's logic then lead us to judging the current administration as incompetent? Of course not because he's a different kind of "progressive". He then concludes with oft-repeated mantra of conservatives that President Clinton's "sexual misdeeds symbolized much more than his just having a fling" which I think Ann and he both agree. One only has to remember the dead Americans floating in the water in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans to become disgusted with Ann and Theo's arguments. How long must the blowjob be discussed by supposed feminists? Over the last thirteen years (and probably longer but let's leave it at that), a young feminist should without qualification support the former President's policies. Ann's readers deserve an apology just for her flawed logic without speaking to her bitter tongue.
I continue to stand by my comments and to assert -- with ever increasing confidence -- that my opponents all have some combination of: poor reading skills, lack of a sense of humor, anti-feminism, calcified political hackitude. Moreover, they've got some scary blindness about the way to help poor Hillary Clinton, who was the whole reason they were wrangled into Bill's presence in the first place. Bumbling all weekend over Jessica's breasts? You people are boobs.
Re: john(lesser)
Right to Privacy? Her husband was the one that blogged about it. Whatever happened in that bar is completely germane.
Uh, this is the internet. This is not like waiving privilege in court. When I say "right to privacy," I mean only that they're under no obligation whatsoever to explain anything at all if they prefer not to, not that there's a Constitutional right of some sort implicated by a completely informal blog discussion. That would be awfully silly.
Sounds to me like a rehashing of yesterday's events. You can not demand attention and simultaneously control the type of attention you get.
Certainly. And the Scalzis are apparently not at all bothered by the commentary -- they are more amused than anything. I'm just pointing out that the picture we have is incomplete, and drawing conclusions on the basis of an incomplete story leads to wrong conclusions. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.
Joined the kerfuffle late because I was sick all weekend.
I know he's retreated by now, but one thing stuck in my craw:
Parry wrote:
And what do you mean that it's something she "didn't do?" I plainly QUOTED the parts of Althouse's posts that I found offensive. What more do you want?
Well, for a start, you could learn what the word "lying" means. You characterized Ann as lying about the contents of the Feministing blog. She didn't.
The fact that she takes away a different impression from something doesn't make her assessment a lie. It makes it an opinion, and if she's sincere about it, then it's a true opinion... and not a lie.
It can be an opinion that doesn't accurately reflect Jessica's intention, but that's still not a lie.
Unfortunately, like too many on the left, you fail to distinguish between "I disagree" (or "you're mistaken") and "you're lying".
(See: Bush lied meme)
When you do so, your credibility drops to near-zero in my book.
Ann even qualified the observation by noting that apparently the blog was 'of that kind'. I read that to mean that it appeared that way to her.
She's entitled to that opinion. Calling it a lie is not logically justifiable. You don't know Ann's mind, so you don't know if she believes it to be true or not. You may find some of her opinions in this matter coarse, insulting, or even undeserved. You have a right to have such an opinion, too.
The difference is, I don't see anyone calling you a liar just because they disagree with your assessment of something. The opposite of "correct and entirely true" is not necessarily "lying", after all. Is there room in your philosophy for "different opinion", or even just "wrong"?
Ann drew some conclusions on follow-up based on her viewing of the Feministing site, and put that together with the context that I believe you admitted you were lacking (re: Clinton's many-pointed spotty history with respect to sexual misconduct).
Can you see how Jessica's protestations might seem disingenuous to some when viewed through such a filter?
I'm not asking for you to agree that the appearance is reality... I'm just asking to see if you can recognize that others might view a situation differently than yourself... without necessarily being a liar.
(There, that feels better having gotten it off my chest... and stop looking at it! ;)
I'm closing down this comments thread, because I don't have time to keep monitoring this controversy, and, as you know, I'm tired of it. I'm not going to say anything more about it, so if by chance anyone thinks not enough has been said, they'll have to locate another place to express themselves. I think that will be easy.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा