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.
Posts
307 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 307 of 307xwl,
I was going to say that "tempest in a C-cup" was the best line here. So it didn't get completely lost.
Wow, Jessica is sending her best (form-fitting, shape-hugging) brown shirts over here!
Note: I despise using allusions to the Nazi party in political debates; it's a disgusting, juvenile and intellectually bankrupt tactic. But I could not resist the joke- I've been thinking about it ever since someone used "brownshirt" as a slur earlier in this titillating discussion.
And I don't know about anyone else, but a blog named Feministing keeps causing my mind to wander over to thoughts of this particular activity
And yeah, me too.
Isn't it time for a bit of non-partisan self-reflection?
Another guy has taken presumably vast amounts of time to intersperse pictures of people he doesn't like (e.g., Karl Rove and Ann Coulter) with pictures of clowns.
That perfect description made me laugh out loud. (I saw that blog several minutes ago.)
Re: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).
Jeez, I hope I'm not a derivative threadmonger, but has anyone pointed out that the silhouettes of women with big breasts are also flipping the finger?
I will now return to my threadbare existence, instalanche free, unvalidated by . . . *sob*
*sigh*
The most pathetic thing about this post, is if there were a group of dowdy looking women wearing sack dresses hunched over, with waist length hair, and fingernails bitten back to the quick, this would be a post about how "homely" or "ugly" feminists are.
Six of one or half dozen of the other. Either way the problem isn't about how she looks, its what she believes.
However, rather than offer a substantive critique of Jessica's positions, Ann chooses to point out that she posed for the camera, and apparently has noticable breasts.
Would you care to offer a critique of my nine year old daughter, from whom we cannot get a candid shot, because she seems to have a sixth sense about when a camera is pointed her way, and strikes a similar pose?
And I notice the thumbnail image attached to your comments. That is not a 90 degree straight on mugshot there. You are "posing" for that image.
With this post, you present yourself as a petty person.
"Jeez, I hope I'm not a derivative threadmonger, but has anyone pointed out that the silhouettes of women with big breasts are also flipping the finger?"
Yes, yes, as has been pointed out about one million times. It's a tiresome satirical strategy "Oh, I'll make the mudflap women giving the FINGER! Brilliant! Nothing says "empowered intellectual" like a mudflap girl flipping the bird!"
Verification word: shudr. Indeed.
Wow.
I'm going to pray to the spirit of the mighty oak tree that maybe everyone can set aside their rancor and vitriol, join hands, and agree on one thing.
Breasts are awefully neat.
There, that wasn't too hard was it? And now doesn't everyone feel better? After all, after all this sniping it seems like it's the one thing that everyone truly agrees on.
What Mackan said at 4:21 PM. Nothing more needs saying.
Except . . .
It just now strikes me that what I was saying earlier about that miserable time between the beginning of the sexual revolution and the beginning of feminism . . . Ann is in effect saying Bill rolled things back to that time.
Holly Schnikes did I ever butcher that last paragraph. I appologize, and place all the blame on my good friend Mr. Glenlivet.
I think Ann is just young enough to be lucky enough to have missed that "interregnum."
What kicked second-wave feminism off was women getting really pissed at the hypocrisy of lefty men who were agitating for the liberation and equality of everyone but their own women, who were supposed to shut up and put out and make coffee and run the . . . what was it called, those purple copy machines? So many technologies ago . . . Nothing had changed except the milk was free.
So the truth of the matter for you righties is that it's all about sex when it comes to liberals. Gee, Ann must be jealous? The intellect around this blog is astounding!
You really need to apologize, Ann.
Why is it so impossible for you to just admit you're wrong?
Seven Machos said:
Gooey Duck -- A conservative women's suit functions exactly like a Brooks Brothers sack suit. It forms a blog over the body and de-accentuates breasts (or lack of breasts).
A blog over the body?? That's wonderful. Better a blog than a burqa.
However, rather than offer a substantive critique of Jessica's positions, Ann chooses to point out that she posed for the camera, and apparently has noticable breasts.
Man are you guys being deliberately obtuse, or are you really that illiterate. The issue isn't her pose per se, it's the hypocrisy of:
A) Claiming to be a feminist,
and
B) claiming to be a progressive proud of the Lamont wing of the moonbats
and then,
C) attending a luncheon with a known sexual predator and probable rapist who for all intents and purposes founded the hated (by the Lamont moonbats ) DNC,
and
D) dressing and posing prevocatively directly in front of Clinton and in the center of the photo.
Chickens have breasts. Womens have t!ts. And just where are the t!ts? I want t!t shots w/my feminist blah-ging! Like with Playboy, where you always get plenty of t!ts between the boring adverts and the stupid interviews with Norman Mailer. Bill Clinton's big red alky nose between a nice big round pair of feminist t!ts is the best place it could possibly be, other than between Hillary's butt cheeks. Keeps him off the street y'know.
instead of STILL panting and slobbering with prurient "disgust" over the entirely tame exploits of Bill Clinton, six-plus YEARS after he's left office. might do y'all a bit of good.
How many years of prison does a rape charge generally carry? If Bill Clinton was in any position less than POTUS would he have been convicted of the rapes of multiple women?
You might want to rethink your scare quotes around "disgust", because yes, I find rape and workplace sexual harassment disgusting. It boggles the mind that so-called feminists cheerfully attend dinners with Bill Clinton.
"Jessica's breasts are definitely a distraction, but personally I'm not distracted. This is about Clinton and the abject support women have given him."
Which is why the post is titled "Let's take a closer look at those breasts," right Ann?
Breasts will always get attention. That's Jessica's trick, and maybe Ann stooped to it a little bit too in the title to this post. She admits she expected the Instalanche.
Not bad MM, MadisonMan said...
And don't get me started on the overwhelming whiteness of the crowd. Do you think if bloggers met a Bush that the photo op would be so white? No way.
You missed making the point that the roundtable meeting at his Harlem office What was that nasty Dean crack about how diverse the democrats were and if it were a Republican meeting the only color would be from the hired help?
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/dean302
Ann: I'm not a law prof, but I used to teach Calculus and what had to do often when I gave a paper a zero was scrawl RTP! across the sheet. READ THE PROBLEM! is there a comparable in Law school or do you jazz RTP up in Latin?
Late to the party - away from Internet access for afternoon/evening.
It seems to me that the Feminisita did two things:
1. Pose wearing a tight top in front of Bill.
2. Have a decent helping of breasts on her website.
Neither of these is deserving of the criticism Althouse has dished out, so I'm not with Ann on this one. And like Jessica's many defenders have said, the feminist arguments do seem a little after-the-fact and tacked on, even if they are valid.
On the other hand, I suggest that you guys drop the topic, since the worst thing that can happen to you (in the blogosphere) is if Althouse starts taking it personally. Secondly, Althouse's standing in the blogosphere is well-established through a mix of serious legal/political issues, plus many frivolous topics, not the least of them boobs, backyard critters, and reality TV. Arguing with Althouse about breasts will do nothing to her reputation, but it may affect a blog with the word "feminist" in it.
This will just become part B of Althouse's multi-part series, "Feminist bloggers who take themselves too seriously."
In honor of this thread...
Best wishes~
UD.
Amba said earlier, "what was it called, those purple copy machines"
Mimeograph is most likely the word you were searching for.
I used to love the smell of a stack of freshly mimeographed papers.
And Amba's point about the genesis of 2nd wave feminism, I believe is on point.
By tomorrow this could be a record setting comment thread hereabouts, and for no good reason other than those on the left's continuous search to find and punish apostates.
(how could youuuuuuu, a Professor, and resident of Madison, not understand how not thinking exactly as we expect you to empowers Chimpy McBu$hHitler and his eeeevil band of Theocrats!!!!)
Define "feminist", ann.
I don't know how old you are or whether you were even alive during the heyday of the 60s/70s feminist movement as I was, but one of the main tenets of the movement is freedom.
Remember that whole bra-burning thing? Yes, women have breasts. Big deal. Get over it.
Women also have the right to wear whatever the hell they want to - just like men. We don't need to hide our figures or look demure just to please other people anymore. That went out out of style a long time ago. I feel like I've fallen into conservative, puritan hell here. What's next? An appearance on the 700 Club about the evil that are women's breasts?
And no, I didn't come here from Feministing. I found this link at memeorandum and wondered what the big fuss was about women's boobs on a political blog written by a woman. And here I find it's just an attack on another woman's appearance. And you call yourself a feminist? Well, you certainly don't practice the brand of feminism that this granny would want to be associated with. That's for damn sure.
And, as for the rest of you who are having cardiac arrest about a feminist meeting with Bill Clinton - get over yourselves. If you want to judge Clinton by his past sexual escapades, knock yourselves out, but you do yourselves a great disservice by not looking at the whole man and the work he's done around the world to help people through his foundation. Just how much penance does that guy have to do before he's a worthy human being in front of your sacrificial altar?
This is 2006. If you want to live in the 90s or the 50s, that's your choice. I prefer to live in the here and now and practice something called "forgiveness". Look it up in case you don't understand the concept.
This whole disucssion is not only pathetic - it's regressive. And it smacks of the personal attacks that the right-wing is so famous for. It's unnecessary, uncalled for and just smacks of jealousy and condescension. and this type of catfight atmosphere is exactly what holds back more progress in the feminist movement.
You want to be a feminist? Fine. At least make sure you actually understand what the word means first.
My God, you are so sick and pathetic...!
Ann, I just don't get it.
I see a photo of a bunch of people, one of whom is Bill Clinton, some attractive, some not as much. Nothing jumps out at me. I read your post before clicking on the picture, so I was expecting a woman leaning over or pushing her breasts together suggestively in front of the president. Jessica is just standing there smiling. Yes, she has breasts. As these people seem to be arranged by height, no, they are not arrayed randomly.
I clicked over to the "breastblog" and saw... okay, a silhouette of a woman, who also has breasts, as women tend to do. This doesn't look sexual to me. The blog does talk about sex, but it also talks about poverty, eulogizes Ann Richards, and discusses various international women's issues on the front page. It is not even slightly "creepy" or "tawdry."
Ann, I usually find your blog provocative even when I disagree, but you're just wrong here. You're picking on a woman for being attractive.
If you want to judge Clinton by his past sexual escapades, knock yourselves out, but you do yourselves a great disservice by not looking at the whole man and the work he's done around the world to help people through his foundation. Just how much penance does that guy have to do before he's a worthy human being in front of your sacrificial altar?
I don't know. Why don't we ask Justice Thomas or Sen. Packwood?
This is great!
Excellent job, Ann Althouse. I went to the fisting blog and had the most hilarious conversation with Jessica, which inspired a post on my blog, containg the genius definition of feminism that Vladimir Ilich would have been proud of.
It's been a while since the blogosphere made me laugh so hard.
this seals it, Ann Althouse is the dumb bitch ever
amba: "It just now strikes me that what I was saying earlier about that miserable time between the beginning of the sexual revolution and the beginning of feminism . . . Ann is in effect saying Bill rolled things back to that time."
Very well put. I think feminism lost a lot because feminist women, who were mostly liberal, felt motivated to stay on his side. The whole sex-positive feminsim thing just doesn't play very well around Clinton.
"I think Ann is just young enough to be lucky enough to have missed that "interregnum." What kicked second-wave feminism off was women getting really pissed at the hypocrisy of lefty men who were agitating for the liberation and equality of everyone but their own women, who were supposed to shut up and put out and make coffee and run the . . . what was it called, those purple copy machines? So many technologies ago . . . Nothing had changed except the milk was free."
Good point. Yeah, I remember the book eagerly passed around in the dorm when I was a freshman. It was "Sexual Politics." That and "Female Eunuch" were the first books I ever paid full price for and bought as hardbacks. I read "The Second Sex" that year too.
The Drill SGT: "I'm not a law prof, but I used to teach Calculus and what had to do often when I gave a paper a zero was scrawl RTP! across the sheet. READ THE PROBLEM! is there a comparable in Law school or do you jazz RTP up in Latin?"
I always say "Answer the question," so I'd need to do ATQ, but I make a huge point of that, and my exam instructions always include the line: "You can ONLY receive credit for answering the question asked." It's okay for blog comments to digress (unlike exams), but the problem here is that the same couple of things are said over and over, so that the denial and the smokescreen character of it became really obvious long ago. Even when that was pointed out and repeated requests were made to address the central question, it continued. To me, as I said, that equates with conceding the point you won't argue. And many of the attacks on me are plainly sexist -- there's some fun irony.
Useless Ducks: That was really cool!
CM: "You're picking on a woman for being attractive."
Don't put words in my mouth. I've never said I thought she was attractive. I've avoided discussing what I think of how she actually looks. My point about her related to behavior and the way she's done up her blog. The original post wasn't even about her behavior, but about the behavior of whoever set up the photograph.
Frankly, I find Jessica profoundly uninteresting, but she horned in over there on the comments to the first post. I'm quite sure she's enjoying the attention. As I say in the update to this post, you folks who are gasping with outrage on her behalf are big chumps. You're doing her PR. So am I, but I thought it was an interesting topic. Still do.
To the commenter who wrote a long post that began by wondering how old I am (Catnip): Why not just start out by saying: I won't take the trouble to figure out the first thing about the blog where I'm going nine paragraphs? Nine boring paragraphs, I might add.
In fact, there's a whole lot of boring on this thread. I like the way my regular readers have been interesting and funny throughout. I don't think the opponents have shown any humor or originality. Why should anyone care what you think when you're not interesting?
Jessica might not be interesting, but talking about her boobs is interesting.
The boobs is exactly what Jessica wants everyone to talk about, and while her boobs are not particularly interesting, it is interesting that Jessica denies wanting everyone to talk about them, screaming "No! I want everybody to talk about how smart I am!" - which is not very smart, but kinda interesting.
Two things:
(a) I'm a little shocked by the double standard w/r/t to the bloggers' attire. Jessica looks like she's wearing a silk blouse and a dark pants suit, and had the jacket off for the photo. Perfectly appropriate business attire for a woman. But what about the men? It appears that only one or two of the guys was actually wearing a suit -- most were wearing wrinkled khakis and button down shirts. How can you wear that to a meeting with a former president? If I were invited to a lunch with Clinton I'd run out and by a brand new suit at Paul Stewart (or the like). Hell, I loath Bush, but I'd still wear a suit if I were invited to a lunch with him (probably wouldn't buy a new one though).
(b) Ann's responses to the critical comments here are shockingly immature. The fact that she feels the need to respond to every critical comment says a lot about the strength of her original argument.
Professor A: mimeograph machine?
Nice to think a person can't have breasts and be a political blogger, Ann. Have you had yours cut off yet? Are you going to be expressing that opinion at BlogHer next year?
The human body is to be celebrated, both from afar and up real close. I love breasts. I also love neck napes, the soft spots behind knees, smalls of backs, ear lobes, the . . .
Jessica Valenti is, by my estimation, a physically attractive woman and is well aware of having been given that gift. She could have worn a burka to see Bill. She didn't.
Jessica is all the more attractive to this male because she's got a rockingly fine mind and is putting it to good use through a variety of worthy scholarly and journalistic endeavors when not posing, er . . . standing.
I am reminded of our dear departed friend Oriana Fallaci, for whom I had the hots for many years. Oriana's beauty never abandoned her. Should I feel ashamed because I celebrated her in that respect as well as her greatness as a journalist provocateur?
Oriana had the whole package. The only thing keeping Jessica from having it would seem to be the ability to chill.
Chill, Jessica, chill. You too, Dot.
Okay, let me see if I can "restate the problem" without talking about Jessica's breasts. Any woman who doesn't condemn Clinton can't be a feminist because he got a blow job from a willing partner? Last I looked he wasn't accused of rape, he was accused of accepting a simple act of fellatio and lying to his wife about it. Is there really anybody on this thread who believes that Clinton is the only politician who ever had extramartial sex? For that matter does anybody believe there's more than two politicians in all of DC who haven't dallied at least once with a starry eyed political groupie? Plu-ease.
Clinton can't be forgiven because of a infidelity that had absolutely no effect on anyone's life except his family's but you don't find it obscene that some poor guy is getting his dick blown off in Iraq while he's defending a lie our current president told, that has ultimately has caused the death of over a hundred thousand people and has put every one of you and your families in danger?
Talk about cognitive dissonance, Bush has done more to destroy feminism every time he opens his mouth than Clinton could have done with a thousand willing encounters with his groupies. I remind you the Bush power base is comprised of the religious zealots who believe a women has no right to choose what happens to her own body, and they don't believe a women should even be allowed near that "purple copy machine." According to these folks the little wifey should be at home, making babies and taking care of her man's "needs." But you think Clinton destroyed feminism? I'd say it's more like anybody who supports Bush has no right to call herself a feminist.
The Impolitic
Damn, as a feminist with noticable breasts, I'm going to have to go back to hunching over so people don't misinterpret my stance.
My vote for "Best Post of Boobie-Blogging Award" goes to Victoria:
http://www.extrememortman.com/bill-clinton/if-only-bill-clinton-had-said-read-my-lips/#comment-859
Verification purposes only: the astoundingly articulate 'Pete' from 12:03 and 12:04 is not me.
If you want to judge Clinton by his past sexual escapades, knock yourselves out, but you do yourselves a great disservice by not looking at the whole man and the work he's done around the world to help people through his foundation. Just how much penance does that guy have to do before he's a worthy human being in front of your sacrificial altar?[Emphasis added.]
Does this apply just to powerful political figures, or is that now th e operant standard generally? Is there a sliding scale? What if it's just a local community leader, the guy who's done more and given more than anyone else in town, but see--there's this little problem, a pattern over time.
Man, that's the way it used to be! The more things change, and all of that! My mom (b. 1939) used to tell stories about how that sort of thing worked, back in the day. (My grandmothers, born 1901 and 1911, both who spent stints working in factories as teens, had even BETTER stories.) Men will be men...but a look at what an important man THAT one is!
Look, what was the whole of point of the sexual harassment movement? What was the point of all that talk about inherently unequal power relationships, and taking advantage of that? Was it just blather, that men had to stop hiding behind their accomplishments and power when they got caught out in (a pattern of) bad behavior regarding women? That women and other women had to stop help holding up that ends of that protective sheet?
Well! Thank God I (b. 1961) had a male boss--not exactly a feminist overall--back in the '80s who didn't get the message that things weren't going to have to change after all. And a strongly feminist female office manager, 10 years older than I, who made damn sure he did.
Otherwise, he might not have stood up, in the end, and risked losing a major client (a community philanthropist, among other things) by telling him he was going to have to break his nasty habit of asking me what color underwear I was wearing when I had to call about some bit of business or other. Or who always wanted to "just stop by" in person to provide information, just so he could park his ass on the corner of my desk so he could lean over and take personal interest in what I was working on.
If we're not going to draw a line against the unrepentant (can't do penance 'til you repent, you know) on the grounds that they're so gosh-awful marvelous in other ways, well, then, what is the damn point? We're back to the way things were in mother's, and even my grandmothers', days. We can't have it both ways.
THAT'S the problem with the embrace of Clinton by feminists back in the late '90s. And it is still the freakin' point.
Do people who write stuff like that which I highlighted at the start of this comment actually not "get" the implication of what they're writing?
Gobsmacking.
That women and other women
That should be "That women and other men
Okay, let me see if I can "restate the problem" without talking about Jessica's breasts. Any woman who doesn't condemn Clinton can't be a feminist because he got a blow job from a willing partner?
It's simple - if an avowed feminist condemns sexual harrasment whether its from Clinton or Bob Packwood, then that person is principled and has earned my respect.
If on the otherhand, the outrage selectively falls along partisan lines, then that person is just a hack.
Steinem could have opined that Clinton was wrong, but his accomplishments in women's rights were excellent.
Instead, she did a dizzying logic pretzel that contradicted everything she supposedly stood for.
You know, I've commented here from time to time and generally thought this was a somewhat decent blog. Not anymore. Ann, your actions were disgraceful. You played along with the intern (Clinton subtext: fellatio) jokes and didn't say a thing when people started making crude sexual comments about Jessica Valenti and mocking her appearance. And when Valenti appeared to defend herself in the comments, you decided to up the ante and start a new post called "Let's take a closer look at those breasts", in which you continued the insults and then tried to claim that the real issue you were talking about was Clinton, not Valenti, even though Valenti was most of what you and your commenters were discussing (and your loser Clinton-obsessed conservative commenters were quick to back you up on that). Then, after all that, you whined about why Lindsey Beyerstein, et al, weren't critiquing sexist comments about you when you certainly weren't doing the same for Jessica, including some from your regular commenters.
This whole thing makes you look like a petty and resentful person, which I am now of the opinion you are. I suspect it really burns you up to see that people like Valenti and Beyerstein have more credibility in the feminist world (which you claim to be a part of) than you ever have or will, and the resentment really came through with these postings. The resentment from the loser conservative crowd arises for other reasons, I'm sure, but since resentment of their cultural betters is the prime characteristic of conservatives these days, I guess that's to be expected. At least they aren't claiming to be feminists.
Anyway, I'm sure you'll just say you don't care about my opinion or call me a chump or whatever. But these two postings and your responses (or non-responses) in the comments really say quite a bit about you, none of it good. Maybe you should have joined the Pajamas Media group after all. You seem pretty comfortable with the type of people that appeals to. Adios.
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.
Perhaps Ann should address that.
Any woman who doesn't condemn Clinton can't be a feminist because he got a blow job from a willing partner? Last I looked he wasn't accused of rape, he was accused of accepting a simple act of fellatio and lying to his wife about it
Actually, you would be wrong, he was accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick. He was accused of feeling up Kathleen Wiley, and that lead one of the icons of feminism, Gloria Steinem to conclude that Slick Willie should get one free grope before getting into trouble. Many feminists seemed to be of the mindset that sexually obnoxious behavior is ok if you are a Democrat committed to keeping Roe the law of the land.
I do have to hand it to Bill Clinton, he is the master. It is very difficult to hear much good about him or his wife on many of these liberal blogs. They will on occasion do so in the context of ripping on Bush, but mostly they hate his triangulation, that he moved the party to the right of Nixon. But then he meets up with these people(or at least the white ones) , charms the pants ( and possibly the shirts) off of some of them, and they buy it.
Mark Warner had to spend big bucks to bribe bloggers at YearlyKOS to back his corporatist, DLC candidacy. Yet Clinton just has to sit with these dupes for a small amount of time, take a few pictures and the crowd is infatuated with him like a 70's teen girl would be after seeing David Cassidy.
Somefeller: I totally call bullshit on your comment. You've been chiding me in exactly the same manner repeatedly in other posts. Hah!
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.
Surgical lady: I'm really not interested in the size of your boobs, but "thanks for sharing." I will say this. Look closely at that picture and try to adopt the posture Jessica's in. I did. It's not natural, and it's not just a matter of standing upright. I challenge you to take this test. Then apologize to me for your foolish accusations.
So ya know what? Jessica has boobs. And she's cute. Everybody needs to stop conflating sexuality, politics and feminism.
Boob is boobs and people like them. being cute doesn't hurt, either. The Israeli army uses women to train their troops because young men listen more intently to female authority figures. Get over it, jealous ones.
At the risk of coming back as often as the Who on a "final tour", here goes.
Ann, if the best you can come up with for my comment is " I totally call bullshit on your comment. You've been chiding me in exactly the same manner repeatedly in other posts. Hah!", then you've really lost it. The only place where I've made a comment close to this one as your per tone and rhetoric is the Michael Moore / hipster thread. Since I'm not in the habit of memorizing what I've posted on comment threads, I did a quick five-minute Google search (somefeller site:althouse.blogspot.com) to confirm that. I haven't repeatedly chided you as per such tone and rhetoric (and frankly, hypocrisy -- haven't seen that criticism of those calling Valenti unattractive yet), so either you're confused or deliberately mischaracterizing my comments. Anyway, not impressive. And this is adios.
This is a "law blog"? I thought I had stumbled into Perez Hilton by mistake. Actually, it's more like Krystle and Alexis in the big mud fight.
If only one of the male bloggers at the lunch had been wearing shorts.
Surgical Solution: And if Ann quit blogging she wouldn't have to deal with judgmental women like you.
I'm inclined to be sympathetic to your story, but when you infuse it with an attack on someone you hardly know, well, that takes the power out of your point of view.
"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
Ahem.
(Thanks to Instapundit who inadvertently helped me out with the time frame so I could go back and figure when the heck Dowd had said something dead-on perfect along the lines of the point that I, and others, obviously, have been trying to make about the unholy brew that results when you try to mix the movement known as Feminism with party politics.)
400+ comments says it all. When men stop looking at breasts, mankind goes on the endangered species list.
Men looking at breasts and other physical female attributes isn't the problem, never was. It's what they're willing to do for that (and more than that) that's the problem. Clinton having a fantasy about an intern wasn't the problem. But yielding to it, being a man in the situation he was in (US President, married) caused all kinds of problems, and not just for him.
Women like Jessica, who pose as 'feminists' while offering plenty of cheesecake and then ciriticizing men who take the bait, are all too common. Recognize them for the predaory hypocrites they are, and move on to better women.
I mean, there's a VERY attractive blonde two doors over, who might be warm and supportive and quite flattered if you told her she was beautiful. (Hmm.... for that matter, the redheaded woman between them might have more going for her than a photo can convey, and might also be open to attention.) Why would anyone knock on Jessica's vain, unhealthy door with such possibilities right nearby?
Oh, wait. Look closer: The slightly heavy redhead's married. Someone has figured her out for the prize she is. And hey - Jessica's NOT married. Huh. Maybe men aren't as dumb as she claims.
"Any woman who doesn't condemn Clinton can't be a feminist because he got a blow job from a willing partner? Last I looked he wasn't accused of rape, he was accused of accepting a simple act of fellatio and lying to his wife about it. Is there really anybody on this thread who believes that Clinton is the only politician who ever had extramartial sex?"
Libby, Libby, Libby..where does one start. To the left "It was just about sex," not about abuse of power, not about character assasination, not about the Juanita Broderick rape charges, the Paula Jones harrassment charges, the Jennifer Flowers charges, etc., etc etc. It was just about getting a BJ from a willing partner. Yup. It wasn't about the shameless support for this sexual predator by the left and by the feminist establishment in particular. After all , let's look at all the GOOD this man has done! Apologists for abusive, power mongers never change through the ages do they? Mussolini got the trains running on time, HItler in introduced the Autobahn and the Volkswagen ("People's Car," after all).
And to answer what this other fool poses as a rhetorical question: "Just how much penance does that guy have to do before he's a worthy human being in front of your sacrificial altar?" Perhaps some of you more versed in the law can give us the sentencing range for rape. After he gets out of the big house, then I'll be ready to listen to all the accolades for Bill's good works on behalf of the planet.
Let's put "feminism" aside for a moment: How can any self-respecting woman hang out with this miscreant? How can any man who claims he respects women (and I'm thinking specifically of my own wife and daughter) hang out with this guy?
As my Mother (the Feminist) used to tell me : "Men are judged by what they do, women are judged by how they look". (this was a rant, not instructions)
Looks like all the years of feminist advances have gotten us is the ability for women to behave like the men they profess to want to change.
"Any woman who doesn't condemn Clinton can't be a feminist because he got a blow job from a willing partner? Last I looked he wasn't accused of rape, he was accused of accepting a simple act of fellatio and lying to his wife about it. Is there really anybody on this thread who believes that Clinton is the only politician who ever had extramartial sex?"
Libby, Libby, Libby..where does one start. To the left "It was just about sex," not about abuse of power, not about character assasination, not about the Juanita Broderick rape charges, the Paula Jones harrassment charges, the Jennifer Flowers charges, etc., etc etc. It was just about getting a BJ from a willing partner. Yup. It wasn't about the shameless support for this sexual predator by the left and by the feminist establishment in particular. After all , let's look at all the GOOD this man has done! Apologists for abusive, power mongers never change through the ages do they? Mussolini got the trains running on time, HItler in introduced the Autobahn and the Volkswagen ("People's Car," after all).
And to answer what this other fool poses as a rhetorical question: "Just how much penance does that guy have to do before he's a worthy human being in front of your sacrificial altar?" Perhaps some of you more versed in the law can give us the sentencing range for rape. After he gets out of the big house, then I'll be ready to listen to all the accolades for Bill's good works on behalf of the planet.
Let's put "feminism" aside for a moment: How can any self-respecting woman hang out with this miscreant? How can any man who claims he respects women (and I'm thinking specifically of my own wife and daughter) hang out with this guy?
I can't believe I keep coming to this thread. For the record, I'm no fan of Clinton for my own reasons. What he did to ramp up the war on some drugs was the real crime. But it's ridiculous to blame him for the death of feminism based on allegations of impropriety, for which he was not convicted -- surely even here in the lofty academic circles of the brainy blogs you're aware that public figures are sometimes wrongly accused of misdeeds. It's a bogus argument when in truth you just don't like the guy.
And whoever mentioned Islamo fascists -- by definition there is no such thing and even if there were, yes I'm more concerned about our own homegrown religious zealots. Last I looked they were the ones attempting to take over our government in order to legislate morality. Do you deny that the US religious zealots are a greater threat to feminism than Clinton could ever dream of being?
I don't have anything to say that hasn't been said yet, so I'll just say the one thing that bears repeating:
Jessica, you're awesome. And you totally have the right to wear your breasts in public, regardless of what these assholes think.
I and millions (billions!) of other women will be wearing our breasts in public today too, as a show of solidarity.
Speaking of slutty whores sticking their tits out...
And speaking of whores sticking their tits into married men's faces...
Maureen Dowd was not blaming Bill Clinton for the death of feminism.
Read her quote again.
Allegations of "impropriety."
Wow. I'm assuming you come here as a follower (in the sense of regular, not of the other meaning, so don't go there) of feminist blogs, which often involve posts about the subleties of gender bias, sexual harassment, exploitation, patterns of behavior on the part of men toward women, etc. etc. etc.
Tell me, do you actually READ those posts?
Please, please tell me you're not an academic, or aspiring academic. I don't expect adults to agree with me. I do expect that, if they're going to engage in debates online on big issues, that they're capable of reading--and I don't just mean sounding out the words using some sort of phonetic code.
If they're academics, I expect them to read well. Then disagree as vehemently as they like.
By big issues, I don't mean tits. Jessica's or anyone else's. (Worn proudly, or not, in solidarity, nor not. For my part, they just sorta go wherever go. I don't assign them any grander role than any other part I'm forced to drag along by virtue of species and gender.)
Ms. Althouse could've saved considerable time by just writing what she meant: "Look! Boobies!"
Tits and progressive bloggers. What could be better?
Count me in !
Good lord, are you really serious? I saw that picture last week on AmericaBlog and didn't think anything of it. Should women start wrapping our breasts to dispel any hint of femininity? Or wearing baggy clothing? Oh wait, why don't we all just start wearing burqas to hide those distracting bulges? Have you actually read "Feministing?" It's not about breasts. Although yes, there are pictures of breasts on the web page, especially the ads for shirts because... well, women have breasts.
All I can say is... Wow. Your attitude is insulting to all independent-minded women.
Just to say, the only one who has spun any of this is Ann. IT'S A FUCKING PICTURE, FER CRYING OUT LOUD! Get your head out of your ass.
I seriously doubt the "feminists" and other Clenis apologists really believe that fiction that he "was just getting a blow job from a willing participant"- what he did is the very essence of sexual harassment- he used his high position, in fact directly in line to help advance to hurt Monica's career, to either tacitly, passively or directly get sex from her.
On government time. On government property. With a government employee. Now, I'm not saying he said "blow me or you don't get Vernon Jordan finding you a job at Revlon-", no, what he was tacitly saying is all you interns who DON'T give me a blow job DON'T get Vernon Jordan finding you jobs.
He's using the fact he has power to exploit an underling (no pun intended) and using his power to reward her for being his sex toy- and screwing all those other employees, male and female, who didn't have sex with him and didn't get the perks she did.
That's exactly why feminists are correct about calling attention to the fact that anytime a boss becomes involved sexually, especially ON THE JOB DURING WORK HOURS with an employee, its sexual harassment and abuse- and not just of the person in volved, but in anyone else working there that is negatively effected (as in not getting raises, promotions etc.) by the cocksucker getting perks and they, by not giving head, losing out on perks.
Feminists know this. They knew it while they were arguing the entire "consenting adults private matter" trope. They basically betrayed everything they'd gotten society to agree with them about male dominance in the workplace and the abuse of that power to gain sexual favors. And they flushed it all away because Clinton was pro-abortion, or because they hate the Republicans worse.
And this episode just serves to remind us all of that.
Plus the girl does have a nice rack on her. I predict that photo will be highly Photoshopped in the weeks to come.
Surgical Solution is a man. No woman could ever talk about her own breasts that violently.
Other than that: O - V - E - R - K - I - L - L ! !
Ann, is there sand in your vagina?
Nice going Dave. You post pictures of a respectable man's wife (Dr Helen Smith, Glenn Reynolds resp.) and call her a slutty whore. This is the level of discourse characteristic of the rabid left.
And Libby, how come one of the reasons you dislike Bill Clinton isn't that he disrespected women in general and made a laughingstock of establishment feminists in particular? That's ACTUALLY what this discussion thread is about, not about Who's tits are perkier/who's younger/prettier/sexier/cooler.
No one on the left has answered the fundamental question posed by knoxgirl so far back in this voluminous thread. It keeps getting posted over and over again in different interations. No replies are forthcoming-except of course to bring up Chimpy McBushitler, insult respectable adult feminist women (Dr. Helen, Prof Althouse), rant on about how "This is the last time I post on this blog %$$&(%$*&$*!!! you, and the horse you rode in on!!," silly gratuitous insults, and the most absurd of all, some lunatic screaming at how she had to get her breasts reduced because of women like Prof Althouse (and presumably those of us in the vast phallocracy). WIll rabid leftists never cease in their whine about how things are always someone ELSE'S fault?
And there's no such thing as Islamofascists. No, just misunderstood devout Muslims who go about treating their women like breeding cattle, (though even cows don't have to wear burkas) sawing off people's heads, blowing up innocent grannies and children in pizza parlors, burning cars, effiigies and anything remotely flammable they can get their hands on at the merest pretext of "insult" to thier religion of peace. Yeah, The Southern Baptists make these guys look like the Boy Scouts.
How about developing a sense of proportion? Oh yeah, I forgot. You lefties have already co-opted that "Proportionality" gig; as in, Hezbollah can fire Katushya rockets at will at Tel Aviv, but Israelis responding in a defensive manner are WAYY out of line when they take out several hundred Hezbollah fighters, oops I mean "civilians."
Just like the refrain over the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal when leftists could do nothing but bleat "It's just about sex,!!" you folk can't come up with a better retort to the queston of the prrpriety of a self-professeed feminist breaking bread with a sexual predator than "It's just about tits!"
Guys love breasts.
Oh... now I see what this is really about.
Poor Ann. Envy is as close to the Green Party as you ever get, eh?
Maybe if you do something nice for him your hubby will by you some nice implants for your birthday.
I hate you. I hate you I HATE you.
In the final analysis our surgically salvaged friend has summarized the Left's retort to the post - 5 year old's temper tantrum.
Karl Rove must be working overtime this week.
Count me among those who broke with feminist groups during the Clinton years. My belief in feminism didn't change, but my belief in feminist groups certainly did.
What Knoxgirl said already and the one who commented on the job interviews being arranged by Vernon Jordan are the primary reasons, but there is one more ...
Not only did those groups sell their souls for Clinton, but they sold them cheaply.
What did they get from their support of his behavior that wouldn't have probaly occurred anyway?
I mind the episode in a Keith Laumer novel in which one of the Groaci lizard-men whispers to the cute human secretary in the embassy, "Don't flaunt those udders at me, you disgusting mammal!"
Being a mammal myself, though a boy, I think it's okay to display mammalian qualities, if done in a prudent and good-tastefull manner.
Excuse me Acute, how exactly did Bill accepting the proffered favors of a willing intern disrespect establishment feminists? Were you even born when Monicagate happened?
As I recall he got caught because she was bragging about bagging a president to her girlfriend. And he was impeached for lying about getting it, not for forcing her or intimidating her into providing favors. Do you really think that young women don't offer their heros sex willingly?
Jeez, talk about living in ivory towers. There's a lot reasons not to like Clinton. Monica is not one of them. Get over it.
I'm not sure why you hate Jessica's breasts so much. Women have them, get over it. Yes they are sexualized in our society, but most of the time they just hang around. As for Feministing being "all about boobs" consider some of the other great third wave feminist journals like, oh, Bust? This woman bashing is just sad, why don't you focus more on the problematics of Bill Clinton instead of remarking on Jessica looking like she's asking for sexual harrassment. Besides that, lots of younger feminists are very much involved in creating sex positive culture, but I dunno, maybe some women are still stuck on Dworkin. Either way, judging someones feminist credentials based on the fact that she has (horrors) breasts is low down and dirty. I'm not sure how you can call yourself a feminist if you're so invested in how other women look over what they think.
But you have to ask yourself -- if Bill Clinton hadn't been there, would you have even devoted three words on this subject?
That's the whole point. No! This is about Bill Clinton. Most specifically, why are "feminists" supporting him and proud to be standing by his side?
It's funny,Ann -
John Edwards invited a plastic sunflower to interview him instead of you at another bloggers-only meet.
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2902
Ouch.
Libby Spencer said...
"Excuse me Acute, how exactly did Bill accepting the proffered favors of a willing intern disrespect establishment feminists?"
As I said in my comment, the reason he disrespect ALL women (not just establishment feminists) is because he gave favors to the woman he had sex with- and by omission all the interns who DIDN'T give him head did NOT get job offers by Vernon Jordan- this is passive extortion. This is the soul of abuse of power and position to cull sexual favors in return for jobs, financial incentives, raises, opportunities that a less attractive, less promiscuous rival does not get, not to mention all the male interns. This is why feminists were correct to say that any on the job sexual contact, consensual or not, between an executive manager and an underling is wrong and abusive- he has favors to give, and gives them to those who have sex with him, this is de facto coercion for ALL interns to compete by giving sexual favors- this IS wrong, and the feminists were right to point this out and convince the American public and politicians to condemn it and pass laws against it- then they gave it all away because their hero was implicated- this is beyond all the accusations of rape and physical abuse by other women- he admittedly gave Monica preference for sex, and in doing so screwed all the other employees who didn't give him head.
Now do you get it?
Ann:
Just because nobody's interested in YOUR tits is no reason to be pissed at the world.
Feminists love bill Clintons politics, it’s no shock that they still, all these years later, can't get past hating his penis. LOL at the state of feminism.
“You're an anti-feminist for the overuse of your breasts around the evil horny man” “No you are an anti fem for noticing my breasts and claiming I was exhibiting them on purpose, as if that’s wrong!” “It is wrong, you capitalize with them there breasts!” “You’re just jealous because you're ugly and no one likes your breasts and you cant capitalize on them” “ Don’t flatter your self, you’re ugly despite them breasts” “well you’re sexist” “no you are” “no You!” “harasment harasment harasment.”
No doubt feministing is silly but althouse is new to me, I seriously do wonder about what Ann thinks of Monica’s capitalizing on her “victimhood”? Making tv appearances, her designer hand bag line, fake marriages to tom green ect ect ect.?
How can you condemn Jessica’s money making iron bra and at the same time ignore Monica’s capitalization?
Your blog does seem to bring in the disgusting misogynists, Ann. I wonder why.
tmkane
Are you saying beautiful women have privilege? I agree. Front and center in the shot with bill was the pretty Woman.
"...so long as you have the blessing of The Ole Perfesser such abstract concepts as "decency" and "honesty" are mere ephemera to you... even as your lips stay puckered around the Knoxville Knob..."
There's the real agenda: The jealous and bitter are piling on because what they really want is to attack Reynolds, and they can't do it on his blog. They can't do it on their own blogs, either, because no one reads them. So, here's their chance to say any indecent thing that comes to mind, in the name of their superior "decency". (Yes, I'm quite sure the irony of her own statement is completely lost on "nurse hatchet".)
"leave your lesbian tendencies out of this...just because you long to wrap your cold shriveled lips around her nice, pink nipples..."
My, this post sure brought the cockroaches out of the woodwork. They'll scurry back where they belong (Kos?) when it's over.
Ellenbrenna: If you don't think "Feministing" is meant to be sexually explicit, then I don't trust any of your observations, including the one that Jessica is just standing up straight. Take my challenge. Stand up, look at the photo, and try to mirror that position. Are you standing up straight? I'll save you the trouble: No.
tmkane: You think Jessica is pretty. It's a subjective thing. It's something I've been avoiding talking about, other than to note that in her blog portrait, she strongly resembles Paula Jones, whom you presumably find extraordinarily pretty. But, really, are you a feminist if you think the best looking people deserve special power? I'll answer that. No, you're not. You have admitted to a very strong point of anti-feminism. Why didn't you notice that you were doing that? I'll answer that. Because you were so hot to defend your partisan side that you were blinded to the obvious.
ellenbrenna
"the post about You Cum Like a Girl is about a trademark issue and the government offices reactions to the request. It is about how people interpret issues of female sexuality vs. the intent of the maker of those messages."
You ignore the shirts are offensive to men and woman. There is only one way to take them “Your not a man you girl” wtf? The whole concept of reclaiming language and shaming “oppressors” is nothing but a lame excuse for hate propaganda. Being proud misogynists and misandrists does nothing for feminist image or issues. I really do wonder why that sort of anti people stuff is so desirable. Oh yeah, its glib, its cute, it $ell$.
Libby, excuse me, I thought you'd been reading the entire thread all long like I was. Does docweasel have to give you the Cliff Notes version of feminism 101 AGAIN?? Even us vaginally-challenged, stupid males have gotten that message. Why do you choose to ignore the meat of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal instead of focusing AGAIN on BJ's by willing participants? Could it be that you typify the unbelievably embarrarsing inabliity of establishment feminists to stare the facts in the eye? That Bill Clinton, The Big He, The Big Dog is untouchable when its Him that's committing the groping, the assault and the rape? Why don't your camp extend the same pass to Bob Packwood or Clarence Thomas, who NOBODY accused of rape or assault? Recall that Clinton's perjury was relevant to the Paula Jones lawsuit, in which she was trying to establish his pattern of behavior, NOT about whether the world gave a good goddamn about his private, consensual sexual affairs.
And since I'm not a woman you can't accuse me of being jealous, of having saggy tits, bad skin, or poor fashion taste. So instead you stoop to impugning my sagacity by alluding to my age. For your information I was born in 1955 and have seen my share of shameless behavior on the part of politicians, thank you very much.
I'm serious:
Am I correct in saying that your opinion is that 'true feminists don't pose?'
I'm sarcastic:
We're going under the assumption that what's inside is more important than what's outside, right?
...I'll write that one down next to "cheaters never win" and "a bully will always back down when you stand up to him, (or her)."
PS- Harris? I mean, smoke 'em if ya got em... a vote's a vote. Win anyway you can, if the "means" really matters to you than you're just a younger brother (or sister) trying to live up to the first born in the family.
As if your initial posts weren't bad enough, you're really covering yourself in shame in these comments, Ms. Althouse.
This is really rather unseemly of you.
So... You're basically ticked off that this woman and her politics ot some attention, and you're trying to cover that up with a lame "oh no she has breasts and you can sorta see their outline in this photo, so that means she's a cheapskate skank and an affront to feminism."
In related news, I hear the Taliban are taking applications for a new spokesperson. This could really be your chance at the big-time!
P.S. Automatically assuming that everyone who disagrees with you somehow support the shots levelled at Katherine Harris is just silly. Although overall, I'd take Jon Stewart over your mindless posturing any day.
Natalia said.."So... You're basically ticked off that this woman and her politics ot some attention, and you're trying to cover that up with a lame "oh no she has breasts and you can sorta see their outline in this photo, so that means she's a cheapskate skank and an affront to feminism.""
Uhh.... no. And that's completely incoherent. What the hell are you trying to say? Ever heard of proofreading... and, uh, like, thinking? And that reading thing too. I kinda like you know recommend it.
"P.S. Automatically assuming that everyone who disagrees with you somehow support the shots levelled at Katherine Harris is just silly. Although overall, I'd take Jon Stewart over your mindless posturing any day."
Duh... do you think you could get everything you write backwards? It could be pretty amazing.
Sorry, Johnny. I stand by every word I've written. And I can see what you and others are doing. You're setting up a smokescreen and ignoring the real issue. It doesn't matter how many times you try to change the subject, the issue for me is Clinton and the embarrassing fawning of these bloggers. I'm completely unimpressed by everyone who fails to face the issue head on. I've asked you folks to address my concern again and again, and you just keep showing me that you won't, which has come to mean to me that you can't.
JackGoff: "IT'S A FUCKING PICTURE, FER CRYING OUT LOUD."
Sheer genius, Jack. So if something's in a picture, it doesn't exist in any other way? Good thing you put it in caps and added obscenity, cuz that makes it more true. Have another drink and pack it in.
Good grief. I've never seen so much vitriolic BS in one place before. (Is it obvious I don't read Kos or DU?). It's disheartening to see that so many adult 'visitors' are not only incapable of comprehending a post's basic point, but that they also feel compelled to crudely and profanely verbally vomit all over everything - especially themselves. The silver lining? I'll use this post as a teaching tool for my 2 daughters to illustrate one difference between the right and the left. I'll simply have them read each comment, and identify the commenter's party affiliation. I anticipate near-perfect scores for them both.
Johnny: This post was written to address precisely that question. Go back and compare the original post, which focused on my topic. Jessica showed up in the comments and essentially demanded that we focus on her. I then wrote this post to do that. In writing it, I checked out her blog and was floored by the hypocrisy. The whole look at my breasts/don't look at my breasts business is a big laugh in my opinion. When I laughed a lot of people got mad. But I'm still laughing, now not just at her but at all of you folks who participated in this bogus protection of her. She sought attention and she's plainly a hypocrite. I pointed that out. Deal with it. Look at her blog. Come on, man, it's a joke. You have a brain. Don't be a fool.
Nice rack!
the issue for me is Clinton and the embarrassing fawning of these bloggers
They're not embarassed. Why are you? What you should be embarassed about is the number of your countrymen who support a president who lied them into a war in which tens of thousands of people have died. That's a post I'd read.
And, if this post is really about Clinton then I'll assume from your title, 'Let's take a closer look at those breasts', that we are supposed to be examining his breasts then?
Just keep digging yourself into that hole but don't complain when it's lonely and dark in there.
I'm curious if "Let's take a closer look at those breasts" would constitute sexual harassment if said in the workplace.
You are, of course, the "formidable law blogger Ann Althouse", so what is your professional legal opinion?
If a young woman came to you and said her boss had said those words to her, would you suggest she shut up and move on or might there be grounds for harassment? "Harassment requires a pattern of behavior" right? Does "twice" count as a pattern?
These are all leading questions, of course. The last one sounds like "In light of your comments which may or may not border on sexual harassment, do you believe you upholding the ethical standards of your profession?"
Just asking.
Well, Norah, I stand by everything I've written. I think Jessica sought attention, acted wounded that anyone noticed her breasts, and it was hysterical that her blog turned out to be one of those blogs that is full of closeups and exaggerated depictions of breasts. If you don't see why that is funny and hypocritical, I am guessing you are one of the many political partisans who are perseverating in this thread, trying to keep anyone from talking about the ridiculous fawning over President Clinton. But it's not working. It's obvious what you are doing. Your solicitude for Jessica's feeling is not credible. I mean, seriously. Talk about her blog. How do you like that as a representation of feminism?'
opendna: The breasts I'm talking about are the pictures on Jessica's blog. If those were visible in the workplace, that would create a hostile environment. If Jessica were displaying those images in my workplace, I would object, probably using the word "breasts" to describe the problem. Glad you're concerned about it. I'm also concerned about the way women who claim to be feminists fawn over Clinton. How do you feel about Clinton and sexual harassment? Just asking.
So, Ann, read any good books lately?
Gee Johnny, dems vote overwhelmingly to treat fanatical Muslim combatants as regular uniformed troops as per Geneva Convention rules , which of course THEY couldnt' give a fig about, and you wonder why people accuse Dem's of sympathizing with terrorists?
Rational: That wasn't very rational. I'm not against breasts and I certainly don't favor discriminating against women because of what they look like. How you can read that into my comments is beyond me. I think it's perfectly fine for women to dress and stand in a way that flatters their figure. But some judgment is called for in a professional setting about what to wear and so on. Everyone knows that. Don't play dumb. It shows.
Well, it's time to close up the old mail bag. I think it's safe to say what was going to get said has been said by now, with lots of repetition too. I'm tired of the vitriol, and the willingness of you purportedly feminist characters to say all sorts of sexist things has been demonstrated ad nauseam, as has your pathetic lack of humor. Efforts to make us forget about the real topic have failed, and I'm tired of pointing that out. So, that's it for this long, long comment thread.
Post a Comment