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.
पोस्ट्स
३०७ टिप्पण्या:
307 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Ann, she was wearing a tee shirt, not a cocktail dress. She was noticeable only for being unusually attractive.
Please don't embarrass yourself any further.
Pathetic try at spin, Doyle. You must be really dizzy.
But I certainly think that to really do a great comic performance, Jessica should have worn a beret. Blue dress would have been good too.
Your focus on Clinton's sexuality was lame. As was your commenter's focus on the intern.
It's OK, we all give in to those impulses.
It's the new Feminism 3.0!
"Hey, look at my tits! No, don't look at them like that, you pig!"
Oh, and the real thing is to point out her compared to the rest of the (much dumpier) females there. They're standing, she's posing.
It's the difference between a genuine smile and a fixed grin for the camera.
Victor: Your attempt to give Doyle an assist is also pathetic. I'm just calling them as I see them.
And I do mean them.
Wow, did somebody pee in Ann's cheerios today?
I think you're overthinking this. Still, chuckleworthy.
Dorothy: Face reality. Sorry if it hurts.
Todd's making a play for a line in my banner.
And anyone who doesn't like what I'm saying about Jessica, prove your good faith by condemning the "Daily Show" clip about Katherine Harris that I've linked to.
What's the deal with "feminists" hanging out with Bill Clinton? We are talking about the same guy who is notorious for his extramarital affairs? The same man who when he was nearly fifty years old and the most powerful man in the world, started boffing a 22 year old female subordinate and later denied it during a sexual harassment lawsuit against him?
Feminists hang out with that guy?
Ann,
From a Darwinian perspective, Femisnisting was simply featuring what she perceives to be natural advantages. Sexual display for a powerful male is quite common in Washigton, by that I mean the animal kingdom. And the old lech, I mean President Clinton, is obviously enjoying the show.
I don't know whether or not orthodox feminists should behave in said manner. From a survival of the fittest perpsective, it's probably a bit dangerous around Bill Clinton.
Fatmouse said...
"It's the new Feminism 3.0!"
Actually, were it new, it would be Feminism 4.0, but as it is, it's perfectly exemplary of many of the things that a wrong with the Third Wave.
It's a shame, because both Feministing and Pandagon have gotten unbearably shrill in recent months, despite the fact that they really used to be quite enjoyable, in a disagreeable sort of way. I think it's basically driving them absolutely crazy that they have practically no power to control events at the moment; it's really going to be a shock to these people when they don't prosper anything like as much as they think they're going to in the midterms. No doubt, there will be allegations that it was stolen.
The same man who when he was nearly fifty years old and the most powerful man in the world, started boffing a 22 year old female subordinate and later denied it during a sexual harassment lawsuit against him?
This is what drove me away from the democratic party and really made me reform my allegiance to (who I thought were) my fellow feminists. I wasn't crazy about Bill's affairs, but I gave Hillary enough credit where I was able to reason, "if it's ok with her, it's ok with me." But when the sexual harassment stuff started coming out... and there was defending of him instead of condemnations!!!! I was seriously, seriously disillusioned.
I also clicked over to Jessica's blog, and was similarly unimpressed. A post about a shirt that says "You cum like a girl"? WTF? One commenter nailed it(loosely quoted): "You insult a guy with those words? Like a female orgasm is somehow inferior?". Seems like 90% of the (admittedly small) stuff I read was nothing but sex, sex, sex. I suppose that's empowering somehow.
The one thing I notice in the picture is that Jessica is inappropriately dressed for a meeting with an ex-President. She's wearing pajama tops. I doubt the commentary would've evolved as it did if she wore a jacket over the shirt.
Just so I'm not accused of sexism, I'll note that the guys on either end are also way underdressed. It's better to overdress and remove tie/jacket than to be underdressed when invited to dine.
I will agree, also, that (although I've never met her and this could be her normal pose) it looks like she's more than posing. She's voguing. Look at me! I'm lunchin' with Bill!
Seems like 90% of the (admittedly small) stuff I read was nothing but sex, sex, sex. I suppose that's empowering somehow.
I think this comes from several sources:
1. the strong idealization by feminists of the era of the sexual revolution--this era really brought the birth of feminism and it's very romanticized, no pun intended by a lot of them. As it is, obviously, by a lot of liberals.
2. the desire to IN NO WAY be associated with the religious right. There is nothing that drives a feminist up the wall like being perceived as sharing an agenda with them (such as anti-porn, etc.) In my experience, a lot of feminists go way overboard with the sex stuff to differentiate themselves.
3. they think it makes them sound tough. Sort of like that Samantha character in "Sex and the City" was supposed to be so strong and independent.
Pete the Streak, your comment makes me speculate that Feministing is intended for lefty men who crave some sexual content but feel they must limit themselves to things that aren't sexist. I haven't read enough of it to see if there's anything that would impress me as bona fide feminist content.
Madison Man, you're right that half of the bloggers showed up underdressed. Unless they were told to dress "like bloggers" or whatever, they were pretty disrespectful to dress like they did. The men should have worn suits and ties to a lunch with a former president. Now, an argument could be made that one ought to show disrespect to presidents, but their blog posts show them fawning over him. So why didn't they dress better? Bloggers!
Ann:
What a total takedown you did on her! Why do they generally believe they are so righteous? Sothey can't see when they are being inconsistent as in the examples you pointed out?
As to your original post- it was fine. You are great observer of stuff- that is what makes your blog interesting.
I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself.)
That may be the best line I read all day.
Feministing -- what an odd word. Depending on context, it would seem equally appropriate as a conjugate form of feminist, or an amalgamation of 'feminist' and 'sting.' Even if the latter is the intended use, 'sting' could equally refer to a manifestation of power (like a bee's sting) or an act of deception (like the 1980s motion picture). The site might be able to explain the origins of the word....but that would require me to actually go there.
Lest there be any doubt about it, any guy who visits a website with a form of 'feminist' in the title is only there to pick up lefty chicks (which might explain the emphasis on the mammary).
Actually, were it new, it would be Feminism 4.0, but as it is, it's perfectly exemplary of many of the things that a wrong with the Third Wave.
Yes. Feminism has eveloved and taken many new forms over the years. Which for most people of both genders is a positive thing.
For those looking for stability, it seems that Feministing solidly re-enforces the "long-standing, self-centered, immature, whiny, b..." stage of human development: "I can say what ever I please and contribute nothing!"
I've never thought about feminism specifically. I think my approach is "situational meritocracy." If I o were out looking for women, breasts would be important. If I were to be discussing economics breasts would be unimportant. Its easy for me to believe that, situationally, someone would think it was important to display their breasts around Mr. Clinton. I also believe that feministing.com has situated itself as a place where breasts are very important, even while they would have me believe that is not the case.
is this a republican blog, or is it just the commenters?
ms. althouse, you may be a fine lawyer, but wonkette you ain't. maybe a different tone would work better for you.
Someone nailed it earlier:
"Look at my boobs!"
"STOP LOOKING AT MY BOOBS!"
Also, I had a rather different interpretation of the "Feministing" moniker which either shows that A) I have an exceptionally deviant mind, or B) "A" as well as being particularly perceptive.
Pete:
"Seems like 90% of the (admittedly small) stuff I read was nothing but sex, sex, sex. I suppose that's empowering somehow."
It's called Sex-positive feminism, and it is a reactionary outgrowth against those feminists who were opposed to pornography (Greer, Paglia, Levy et al). In the view of these people, it is empowering that, although Asia Carerra, for example, makes a living by being sexually objectified, it is liberating that she is able to do so, and that she is her own pimp. I'm sceptical, to say the least, that there is anything "liberating" about a career in prostitution, but that's their premise.
Third wave feminism, it seems to me, have never had so much to do with discrimination against women qua women as it has had to do with uniting various left-wing causes with the very worst of left-wing habits of mind.
Oh Puh-lease!
The reason that Jessica posted on Ann's blog in the comments in because she wanted to draw attention to herself. "Look at me!"
The reason that Jessica "posed" in front of the president? Same thing, "Look at me!"
The reason that Jessica's blog is all sexed up is because it draws attention to her..."Look at me!"
This isn't about feminism or even about Presidential luncheon etiquitte. This is about Jessica's immature cries for attention.
She's simply using feminism as a front to achieve that goal.
@ TH
As for picking up leftie chicks: I live in Mississippi. Jessica lives in New York City. Get real.
Obviously, how silly of me. After all, there's no chance that other people from outside of New York view that blog. Likewise, the possibility of travel to or from New York is equally impossible.
(And, BTW, what kind of real feminist is completely willing to overlook my use of the word 'chicks'? I stand resolute in my opinion.)
As to the photo, and Ms. Feministing herself:
Believe it or not, Bill Clinton knows how to have his photo taken with a group. If he can't see the camera...or thinks he's blocked by the camera...he'll move. Worst case - they'll re-shoot and use a different picture. And even if you're 'pose' rationale is to be believed....that really doesn't explain why you're posed in profile. Unless you have some neck condition we don't know about which prevented you from squaring up to the camera, I'm not buying it.
(Of course, if you hadn't placed said profile directly in the center of the photograph...chances are we aren't having this discussion.)
we see the world as we are. if all ann althouse and her commenters can see are breasts breasts everywhere they look, how strange. but then, breasts are nice. it could be worse.
Jessica: Why don't you attempt a substantive defense of your own blog instead of saying things here are "low" and "sad"? I'm really disgusted with women fawning over Clinton and playing up to him. Why not read the posts I've linked to here, like this one, and get to some serious reflection about feminism? You come across as a lightweight seeking attention on the web for pretty much nothing. You load up your blog with breasts, and then you're offended why someone points it out. That's low and sad if you want to just dribble out three letter words.
You do not impress me at all. I don't see how you have a damn thing to do with feminism. You seem like a self-promoter appropriating and debasing a word that's important. You've got a lot of explaining to do. I can see why you prefer to go on the offensive and attack me. But all you're attacking me for is something I pointed out about you. Why don't you defend yourself? Or better yet, why don't you try blogging without those crappy silhouettes and tight T-shirts? And start taking what Clinton did seriously. Then I might begin to have some respect for you. But I expect you'll just come back with another wow, Ann, you're really low and sad to talk about my breasts comment. And that will be totally lame, let me say in advance. It's obvious that you're bending over backwards -- figuratively and literally -- to keep the attention on your breasts. How about some actual intellectual substance instead?
Isn't this all just a tempest in a C-Cup?
(let me take a closer look . . . OK, possibly a tempest in a B-Cup, it's hard to tell, given the enhancing effect of the pose)
However, the real question everyone should be thinking about, would a Republican former President who posed in a room full of rabid right wing bomb throwing radio show hosts or bloggers be given a pass regarding 'endorsing' the lunatic fringe of his party?
And to Jessica at Feministing, don't you know that 'flipping the bird' as an insult is all part of the eeeevil phallocentric hegemony endemic throughout male dominated culture?
The upraised middle finger is a substitute phallus, if you really want to promote feminism your site wouldn't reproduce this sort of abusive phallocentric imagery within your banner.
One might also ask why Jessica was invited to this Clinton summit in the first place. Her blog ranks far below the others represented at the lunch. Her page views are, for example, far belows yours, Ann, but massively below Kos, significantly below TalkLeft, Firedoglake, and the other well-known and popular progressive sites, based on Alexa, which Technorati uses.
(To be fair, I compared her site to mine and she kicks my ass like she was John Kerry and I was a swiftboater. But I wasn't expecting an invite.)
I am not suggesting she was invited for her appearance. But could it be tokenism?
It's obvious that you're bending over backwards -- figuratively and literally -- to keep the attention on your breasts.
no. your post is titled "LET'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THOSE BREASTS," ann. your post, not jessica's. you are an idiot.
Philo, it was me who -- as you call it -- nitpicked about the dress of those who met former President Clinton. I'll restate what I said: If Jessica had worn something more respectful of the office of the Presidency, this entire thread would not have taken place. She thrust her breasts into the spotlight and took umbrage that people noticed. That sounds narcissistic to me. And you sound like a sycophant.
Ann -
This disaster of a discussion began with your gratuitous swipe at the attendees of a lunch, who either "gravitated" or were "Daou-wrangled" into meeting with Bill Clinton.
Your initial post took extra care to call attention to the "intern" standing in front of the Clenis, as evidence of some moral failing on her part, or Bill's, or both. That was weird, and depressing, as I pointed out in that thread.
Now it turns out she's not an intern, but has a blog that you're not at all impressed with, so you're whaling on her for that.
Why does Jessica suddenly owe you "intellectual substance" when there hasn't been any here for days?
It is unbelievable how much you have read into this photo. Based entirely on an image of a pretty girl posing for a photograph you have her standing in her room that morning tarting herself up for a former president, the photographer, and the general public. You even seem to have her elbowing her way into position in front of the president either to get leered at by him or so that we would all see how pretty she is when we look at Clinton in the image. Though the objective perception seems to be that Jessica is, in fact, pretty, you condemn her for being so in a picture as if it were her duty to take Atrios' place in the back to be obscured from view.
Take a moment and consider how Jessica got to the event. Did she present her breasts at the door and get ushered in, or perhaps was it her reputation as a blogger, her dedicated readership, and unique contribution to the blogosphere? To focus so heavily on one pose in a single photo is to ignore what she accomplished to get into that photo, what she contributed at the meeting, and how she plans to continue her work now. It is, in effect, to discount the person to dwell on the body, which is shallow, regressive and a good indicator why Ms. Althouse wasn't invited to join the group. Had she gone, I'm sure she would have dressed in full Islamic garb to ensure that no one would assume that her breasts got her into the room--just like she'd stick to legit issues on her blog lest people think she's the intellectual equivalent of the tramp she accuses Jessica of being.
if all ann althouse and her commenters can see are breasts breasts everywhere they look
Interesting summary. Speaking for myself, what I object to is not breast, breasts, everywhere, but that a person who writes a blog called feministing is meeting with Bill Clinton.
Sorry: there is simply NO WAY to be an intellectually honest feminist and admire Clinton at the same time. (if Jessica wants to be taken seriously, she has to address this.)
With that said, though it resulted in an amusing photo, I personally do not believe that she posed that way on purpose.
Yes, Doyle, it's such a buzz-kill.
Not Clinton's behavior, of course! ... but when people remind you of it. How dare they.
Tom,
I'd like to hear your justification of Clinton's behavior.
So this is how wars start. Cool.
Ann, you have only two choices. (A) Erase this post and all the comments, or (B) get out those topless pix of you from Woodstock.
Otherwise, these comments may degenerate into useless, repetitive, escalating vituperation.
calling a grossly average-looking woman "unusually attractive."
seven, this comment is grossly below the level of commentary on this blog, You're going to far, IMO.
Mr. Head: There may be a lot of right wingers in my comments, but your equation of that with anti-feminism is quite ignorant.
Interesting point about Feministing being a much lower traffic blog than the other one's represented in the group. But I couldn't see what the traffic was over there. Anyway, I read Jessica's bio, and I found it hard to see what Mr. Head was drooling over.
And, people, I know Mr. Head, is a troll. He, and others, can't do much more than stamp their feet and name call. One senses they are very young. In any case, they aren't sharp and they aren't funny. The level of commenter sent over from Feministing is perhaps an indication of the quality of that blog.
Hey, like 10 comments went up while I was writing this. I guess a nerve has been hit. I hope some of the regular readers say something funny soon. I'm sooooooo bored with Jessica's breasts and they guys who are championing them/her.
David said...
Notice Clinton: Can't see his hands
No David, if you look at the Feministing version, you can see Bill's hands are all visible.
As for Jessica's www site and this discussion overall I think both are fairly puerile. My quick take is that it is a Wonkette clone without the good DC gossip. same sorts of over the top sexual commentary to titillate. Same bad jokes, like that Harris spoof. I note however that Harris and Jessica both do like that 3/4 pose with pecs extended, and tight tops.
How are you going to respond to that, Ann? Her blog is breast-free!
A young female blogger gets invited to a meeting with a former president.
Not just any blogger. A feminist blogger.
Not just any president. A sexual harassing president.
See the problem????
ann, if you're bored with jessica's breasts, why did you write a post titled "let's take a closer look at those breasts"? i still don't understand.
if you think women should be ashamed of their bodies, i hear the taliban is making a comeback in afghanistan.
Doyle: "Now it turns out she's not an intern..."
Doyle, why are you this dumb? It's really not fair to Feingold that you're using his picture to represent you.
Lindsay Beyerstein is my new hero.
Lindsay: You aren't answering enough of my questions. Look at that blog! Tell me why you accept feminism presented that way. And read my old post that I linked to about how Clinton and feminism. You're brushing this off and not taking it seriously. I'm laying out a challenge here and you're engaging in spin, acting like I'm just stooping for a cheap laugh, but that is not so. There is a serious point here, and you're ignoring it.
Actually, Ann, Lindsay is pointing out exactly the fact that you only fished for objections to Jessica's content after you were caught being a complete ass. You tacked on a bogus feminist critique to a sexist cheap shot.
ann, if your question was "why would a feminist meet with bill clinton?" why didn't you say that instead of "look at the tits on that one!"
Rising Jurist: can you demand to be taken seriously if you're a man who bulks up? Can you be flagrantly gay and still be taken seriously? Can you be a woman and not hide it and be taken seriously? It's your fault if you can't take someone seriously if they look a certain way.
I hope some of the regular readers say something funny soon. I'm sooooooo bored with Jessica's breasts and they guys who are championing them/her.
I tried with the 'tempest in a C-Cup' comment earlier, but it got lost in all the angry recriminations from the sinistral side of the blogosphere.
Let's just ignore all this and celebrate the lives of two REAL feminist who passed this week, Gov. Ann Richards, and Oriana Fallaci.
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
trj, i believe jessica asked if you think women should bind their breasts when they go out in public. i also suggest that women could wear burqas to avoid men and women who can't think about anything else if breasts are around.
it is about shame, and it is about who decides what women do with their bodies. hint: to feminists, it ain't men.
What a strange thread this has turned into.
Skimming through it, I started thinking back to all the political posturing when the Monica business first hit the fan. I distinctly remember Ann Lewis, a DNC honcho and very experienced politico of ostensible feminist persuasion, on the various talk shows going after anyone who doubted Clinton's finger-wagging denial about never "having had sex with that woman." Throughout the whole circus, the silence from the NOW crowd was deafening. It was proof, if any were needed, that as a political matter they were part and parcel of the Dem team. And, in terms of loyalties, it became obvious pretty quickly that the political needs of the Dem team in general, and Clinton in particular, trumped whatever their ostensible commitment to feminism might otherwise require.
I gather that the bloggers that Clinton chose to dine with and that were featured in the photo giving rise to all the current noise, were all identified in one way or another with the Dem party. I didn't have much reaction to the photo when Ann posted it and still don't. But judging from the reactions on this thread, nothing much has changed over 10 years: when it comes to priorities, the demands of lefty Dem politics still take precedence over the demands of feminist principles. Clinton thus will continue to get a pass from that crowd; the real creep in the whole Monica mess will always be Ken Starr; and Clinton's past peccadilloes and known proclivities are just something to joke about (verbally, or visually, as here, in this photo).
richard, if ann althouse had written your comment, we'd be talking about that. ann althouse wrote a post disapproving of another woman having breasts.
Seven Machos- you nailed it:
"I think the people who are disagreeing with Ann Althouse here ultimately are questioning whether there is such a thing as appropriateness."
Yes, as in the appropriateness of Althouse's post and subsequent comments. We could also make this about intellectual cohesion, I suppose, and not just appropriateness. I'll leave it to Lindsay to do that (see comment up thread).
When did torpedo bras get popular again?
Well, if anyone ever wanted to know why I read feministing and DON'T read althouse, this thread will tell you why. And it's apparent that Althouse doesn't read feministing, either, based on her puerile and inaccurate description of it.
Reading the comments of those who agree with Althouse made me depressed, too. Not exactly the kind of company I'd like to keep.
This is my favorite post in a long time. This Jessica chick could have gone really far with just saying, 'yeah, I do sort of look like that,' and laugh it off. But when she got all highfalutin' about her blog's mission, she completely invited Ann's hilarious remarks.
If she just pulled an Ana Marie Cox and admitted her slutty sensibility, people would respect her honesty and therefore intellectual integrity even more.
Seven Machos and Rising Jurist:
So it comes down to this: Jessica's choice of a modestly cut sweater and dress slacks covering her natural breasts means she's asking for it. She objectifies herself by (a) existing and (b) turning to the camera at an angle.
I'm sorry, but I think it's more likely that the problem with this photo is in how you two and Ann are perceiving it. Your inability to get past her breasts has nothing to do with Clinton but rather your inability to allow Jessica to exist outside your sexist preferences.
Shorter Althouse commenters: I reject Jessica's intellect because she made my pants move.
xwl: I think of that too.
Seven: Yes. Not appropriate.
geoduck2, it may be appropriate for a summer lunch. My argument is that it's inappropriate for a lunch with a President, when you should put on your best bib and tuck. I don't care if they're told to dress down. Clearly, the President didn't. If your clothes are too casual compared to your host's, you've done something wrong. And if she were dressed more conservatively, if I can use that word here, this whole discussion would not have taken place.
I wouldn't wear flipflops to meet the President, either, by the way.
I only did the second post because Jessica showed up in the comments on the first post and acted like I was "judging her" by her "looks," and it struck me that it was funny that she was essentially bragging about her looks, when my post was all about the behavior. I never said she looked fabulous or something, though she seemed to have construed it that way. Then, to write this post, I had to go to her blog, and I was floored. It was really funny that she actually was exploiting breasts on her blog. I hadn't realized it was, like, her trademark.
And all these commenters showing up and going on and on about it is really in the category of protesting too much in my view. Plus you folks who won't accept my razzing Jessica for this will never, ever talk about Bill Clinton and how much he hurt feminism.
tcd said...
I am enjoying this comments bout immensely. It's fun watching an intellectual heavyweight like Ann dust off featherweight "professional" feminists. Seriously, when did feminist become a profession?
Obviously, Feminist is a profession, they give degrees in it like:
Masters degree in Women's and Gender Studies from Rutgers University
http://feministing.com/jessica.html
Well, I see what's going on in here. I am smack dab in the middle of a good old fashioned cat fight.
ahem???
Will any of you Jessica defenders actually defend the point of this disagreement - so brilliantly presented by knoxgirl:
knoxgirl said...
A young female blogger gets invited to a meeting with a former president.
Not just any blogger. A feminist blogger.
Not just any president. A sexual harassing president.
See the problem????
3:57 PM, September 15, 2006
Paul Z,
Good one.
Alternatively--"Tits on a Bore."
geoduck2 -- I complained about the men in shirtsleeves too. Boy, if I showed up like that for a meeting with the President, and my Mother found out what I wore, she'd complain long and loud to her bridge club!
But I can see we won't agree on this.
lizzy said...
"The problem, as I see it, is that Ann is attacking a fellow feminist. How is the women's movement ever going to gain a substantial foothold unless we work together against issues that truly matter."
Well, you could start by not trying to homogenize the movement by marginalizing and belittling anyone who does not tow the line 100%. There is an urgent need for feminists to recognize that one does not have to be female to be a feminist, one does not have to be liberal to be a feminist, one does not have to reject traditional values to be a feminist, one does not have to embrace sex-positive feminism to be a feminist, and most of all, one does not have to be pro choice to be a feminist. As Ronald Reagan once observed, you don't get to be a majority by going around looking for people you won't work with, which is precisely what the third wavers have done to feminism: they have gutted it and demanded the excommunication of anyone who dissents from an official dogma which has very little to do with feminism as that term has previously been understood.
I don't agree the idea - amply represented in this thread - that there is an inherent contradiction between feminism and embracing female sexuality, but there is a contradiction in embracing it yet criticizing others for embracing it in ways you disapprove of (sexuality either is, or is not, on the table, for all purposes), and there is an even deeper problem in making this embrace and castigating anyone who does not also do so.
Paul:
Maybe I need new glasses but I did not think Jesica had what it takes to be a contestant on your new show "A Rack The Model".
Anyway, I can't wait to read what Jessica (it's been three days now Jessica) and the other worshipful bloggers learned at the big pow-wow. Especially since one of her fans claims there were quite a few brainy heavyweights at the lunch not including WJC.
Jessica Feministing said...
John, I'd be happy to discuss it if that's what this post or the previous thread were actually about. But they're not--they're about what a dirty whore I am for having breasts.
4:42 PM, September 15, 2006
Some are {A Rack, The Model - c'mon. Pull it back.}, most aren't. And the main thing is, the original (today's post) is about the dichotomy between Clinton's actions and feminism. How can they co-exist?
Thanks for the link, Ann. But before you criticize Jessica, I think you should take a closer look at her site. Here is a really fine essay from which we can all learn.
Mackan: "Althouse's aggressive tone"
You have not yet seen Althouse's aggressive tone. This is pretty fun-loving. I've been striving for a relatively light tone here and emphasizing how funny I found Jessica. I'm aiming a few light stabbing pokes at Clinton. But, trust me, if I wanted to be aggressive... it would be really different from this.
I don't even agree, by the way, that there is an inherent contradiction between being a feminist and liking Bill Clinton. But I would argue that it is incumbent upon those who would adopt such a deeply counterintuitive position to explain why. Even if that explanation is as simple as "because he may have done some really terrible things, but he appointed Ruth Ginsburg and that's good enough for me", even if the explanation doesn't convince anyone, you surely owe it to yourself, if no one else, to explain why it isn't contradictory.
Dave TN said...
Well, I see what's going on in here. I am smack dab in the middle of a good old fashioned cat fight.
sssshh! They might turn on you.
Ann, you should be ashamed of yourself. Jessica is standing the exact same way as the woman to the left of her. You just can't see that woman's breasts because she's wearing a black t-shirt.
Nothing about Jessica's behavior was "innapproriate." She's dressed appropriately. She's standing with her back straight and her hands at her sides, just like everyone else. She was positioned in the front of the picture because she's shorter than most of the other attendees. I saw the picture yesterday and none of these things even crossed my mind -- it looked completely normal to me.
Jessica has breasts. When she wears clothes, you will probably still be able to notice the fact that she has breasts. Your fixation on their presence seems a little odd. I suggest you get over criticizing other women for living in female bodies and get onto doing something that actually matters.
Ann,
Never use "light stabbing pokes" and "Clinton" in the same sentence.
Some might get the wrong idea.
Thanks, John. Obviously I'd like a response, too, but apparently, that's not going to happen...?
I love the way Jessica came back to say "what a dirty whore I am," something no one had said. I don't really know why I'm helping her get the attention she craves. Sorry if it's boring. Not sorry if I hurt her feelings... but I don't really think I did.
The difference between Jessica and Wonkette?
1. Wonkette is actually funny.
2. Wonkette is actually hot.
I must have been committing what Maddox refers to as "phallic aggression."
I hope I go to hell and Andrea Dworkin sits on me.
If not Andrea Dworkin, some other fat crazy frigid bitch who needs to get laid. You know the type.
tcd:
yes, they're all dismissing the discussion as petty fluff; but then they keep harping on those points and studiously avoid the one serious topic many of us keep bringing up.
Knoxgirl is the conscience of this thread.
Steve H is the demon. Did you do that parody? It's quite something. I thought it was from Feministing at first and thought, hey, they really are funny. If I were Jessica, I'd claim credit for it.
I thought it was me.
Don't judge Jessica by her looks. Judge her by her sparkling personality and sense of humor.
I have no idea who did that parody, but it's about ten billion times as important as Jessica's online puddle of curdled estrogen.
Don't judge Jessica by her looks. Judge her by her sparkling personality and sense of humor.
Jim, that's just cruel and uncalled for.
It's a bit difficult for me to know what to make of all this.
My basic take on your original post on the Clinton meeting with progressive bloggers was, like yours I think, how fawningly uncritical and superficial all of them had been. I thought it ironic for him to be closer to the women in the photo on your site. But I didn't necessarily think that the blogger in question was posing inappropriately.
But on her site, she does seem to want to have things both ways: to be an ardent advocate for feminsm and the deobjectification of women, while voluntarily acceding to such objectification. You see this inconsistent admixture among younger women who describe themselves as feminists and it mystifies me.
Mark
Lizzy: Yeah, there's a really important issue that everyone on your side of the argument keeps pretending not to see. So since you're interested in some serious substance, how's about you get your side started with that. Because we've been waiting and waiting.
I'm still waiting for one of you to get into the substance of my old post Democrats have a long, long way to go to convince me that they care about feminism. And the way is getting longer the more you folks keep ignoring it. Every time you say I'm only concerned about Jessica's darned breasts, the way gets longer for me. You won't even begin to try.
So, yeah, "there are more important issues at hand." I agree. Get to it. I've been waiting all afternoon.
"Feministing -- what an odd word. Depending on context, it would seem equally appropriate as a conjugate form of feminist, or an amalgamation of 'feminist' and 'sting.'"
Yeah, it's an unusual coinage. Are there any other words that start with "f" and end with "isting"?
I should say that in linking to that old post of mine, what I really want you to address is the part about Clinton, which mostly means that you need to read the linked article by Stuart Taylor (which had a huge effect on me). If you are a Clinton fan (and I voted for him twice), you owe yourself the enlightenment.
And Jim's right about the meaning of that blog name. It's a graphic sexual image, which is just one more reason why the protests on Jessica's behalf aren't believable. She was promoting her blog and I'm pretty sure she's happy it worked.
The real sticking point for the people who are pissed at me is that they love Clinton and they know that what this post and the other one were really about was him. 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.
These two comment threads make feminists seem petty, catty, malicious, obstinate, and idle. Or am I confusing feminists with laywers?
Yeah, Jessica's desperate to "promote her blog," Ann. Jesus Christ, you lob a critique of her appearance and then get pissed that she stood up for herself, dismissing her as self-promoting?
NO, the real sticking point is that if you wanted to blog about Clinton, you should've blogged about Clinton and left Jessica out of it. You failed at doing that and now you're desperately covering up for it. Take some goddamned responsibility. Your attacks on Jessica were out of line.
Ann Althouse said...
"And Jim's right about the meaning of that blog name. It's a graphic sexual image, which is just one more reason why the protests on Jessica's behalf aren't believable."
A far more natural (and less unpleasent) reading would be that "Feministing" is a portmanteau of "Feminist Sting," which is how I have presumed it is to be read.
Lady, you are Bat. Shit. Insane.
End of story...
Lizzy,
I meant "you" as a group noun. It wasn't intended as a personal attack, it was intended as an answer to the question I saw as being implicit in your post.
Lizzy,
I meant "you" as a group noun. It wasn't intended as a personal attack, it was intended as an answer to the question I saw as being implicit in your post.
"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?
I agree with the person above who said that this was a lapse in the usual quality of this blog.
If you want a serious discussion on an issue, you probably should start a thread about that instead of one titled "Boobies." It's hard to see the issue you are saying you brought up what with all the snarky remarks. /shrug
Whoo. I see that there's been bunches of comments since I started to add mine (it's the dinnertime shuffle) around here. I haven't read 'em yet, so if mine ended up redundant, I'm sorry.
Wait, Jessica is dressed "somewhat provacatively"? Are you serious? She's wearing a sweater the covers her entire upper body and long pants.
Perhaps a burka would have suited your tastes better?
That's an Ann Taylor silk shirt.
It is appropriate for a summer lunch.
Not with the pants selected, not without a jacket or light summer sweater. Too casual. The fact that it's summer doesn't matter. And the "Ann Taylor" thing is irrelevant--it's not about the designer or the clothing line. (Unless you think that because something's put out by/under a particular name or line makes it automatically appropriate in all outfits in all circumstances. In which case, whatever. No, how shallow.) What you may or may not choose to wear at conferences has nothing to do with anything.
As to substance (in my opinion): The problem here is not boobs. Not Jessica's or anyone else's. Or even boobie blogging (which I don't happen to think Jessica is doing, by the way, though I think the closeup pic of the [cute] "love your blog t-shirt" is maybe ill-advised). I get the irony of the mudflap girls myself, but I can just as easily see how that irony might not work for everyone, and that the logos themselves could legitimately detract from the blog content, even among those who might not disagree with posts on the blog. And I think XWL has got a point or two.
But all of that is irrelevant to the point that keeps getting shoved aside, despite, for example, Knoxgirl's valiant efforts.
In short, the problem is not BOOBS, it's Bill. It's feminists considering it an honor to meet with Bill WHEN their primary identification is as feminists AND when the failure of feminists to condemn Bill on a specific issue that feminists themselves had worked so hard to bring to light, simply because it was "their guy" who was involved, was a MAJOR low point for organized feminism in the the 1990s. To my way of thinking, the lowest in modern feminist history with the exception of the most recent, which would be too big of a digression to get into.
Note that I tried to be very careful in how I worded that. I am not a global Bill-basher. I thought the way that the whole Clinton investigations eventually devolved was a terrible distraction (cure: one six-year term for presidents only; we just can't cope beyond that).
But my point still stands. I don't particularly care about what Jessica wore in the picture, or anyone else, for that matter. I may note here that I think some of the dress in the picture, including hers, is not appropriate, since the issue had already been brought up, but I don't really care.
I care that she and other feminists , as representatives of such philosophy, and other like-minded groups, consider it to be an honor to meet with Bill Clinton, given the black-eye organized, political feminism inflicted on itself back in '90s.
It brings it all back, that disillusionment, the sense that what's good for one gander is not good for another gander. That women, when it comes to party partisanship, can make just as much gooses of themselves as men.
Now, I think I'll go back to poring over boring census data and pondering how we're defining race, ethnicity, origin and culture in this country. It'll be a welcome distraction.
Reposted because the original exceeded even my toleration for typos in comments, and clarify in one place or two (minor word additions).
Ann,
I reread your Nov 2005 post on Feminists and Clinton as well as the Stuart Taylor piece. I'm pleased to reprise one of my eaerlist blog postings to that same piece:
The Drill SGT said...
I don't have much of anything to say about your personal Feminist credentials but will toss in 2 comments:
1. That site and those 890 comments are a cesspool of mental cases.
2. There are too many FEMINISTS (large F types) who can't dis-connect democratic politics and what is good for women. For example, it seems to me that the fact that Afghanistan elections that elected more women than the floor (25%) should be a real success story. Same with all the girls in school, but because if one were to call them successes, it might reflect well on the US and the current administration, those stories don't appear or are denigrated by the AP or CNN.
It's still true. Honest Feminists ought to deplore Clinton's gross objectivacation of women in the workplace. Those that aren't captives in the orbit of the DNC that is.
Serious comment: What Mark Daniels said (5:28). And Knoxgirl. And Ann (re: feminists and Clinton).
Not-so-serious-comment: This is the funniest Althouse thread ever, both intentionally (XWL, Old Dad, Dave TN, Drill Sgt, et al.) and otherwise.
I agree with Ann that Bill's ruddy color in the photo is probably due to lust rather than age. Given this, and given that Jessica the Chaste bears some resemblance to Paula Jones, it is likely that Lusty Bill will contact Jessica the next time he is in her city. And if he does, will she agree to inform all of us of this as well as about the specifics of anything that transpires later?
BTW, earlier I accused Ms. Althouse of being "Bat. Shit. Insane."
After reading her entire post more carefully, I'd like to amend that to say she's a dried up, humorless, know-nothing old cunt with obvious issues over the appearance of younger women, and most likely pissed off because nobody wants to fuck her.
I regret the error.
I mean, "Tempest in a C-Cup"?
C'mon! That's classic!
XWL, your talents are unappreciated in the thick fog of neo-feminist outrage.
Wow, talk about the breast thing over at Feministing's
Breasts , there's another one.
This babe is totally into showing us her titties!
And, Sippi is correct.
changing the subject slightly, in my exploration of Feministing, I learned two more things that should not, but do amaze me:
1. There are people that now call themselves social justice journalists. Those people used to be called left wing propagandists. and
2. beyond women's and gender studies degrees, you can get a degree in Master's Degree in Human Rights from Columbia University simply amazing.
Whoa, there, Dave!
Do your folks know you're up this late?
I think she's cute--got nice breasts. I've no doubt Clinton paid plenty attention to her and enticingly bit his lip while focussing on her brain. She cozied up to him, because he encouraged it. I don't think there's anything wrong with what she did, aside from being the typical pro-sex-no-wait-anti-sex feminist. It's just humourous that Clinton plays to his own caricature so reliably.
"Wow, talk about the breast thing over at Feministing's Breasts, there's another one."
It's true, feminists do it better. Unfortunately, "it" refers to frowning and making "shame on you" gestures.
For example, it seems to me that the fact that Afghanistan elections that elected more women than the floor (25%) should be a real success story. Same with all the girls in school, but because if one were to call them successes, it might reflect well on the US and the current administration, those stories don't appear or are denigrated by the AP or CNN.
Actually, the Taliban is back to killing teachers and family members that allow female students to go to school.
Spend a little more time reading the news and a little less time pointing to "boobies" and giggling uncontrollably...
Ann,
Dave's last "bat. shit." comment has to go. Please whack that vulgarity, and ban the troll while you're at it.
Eh, I late to this discussion, but one this is for sure, this gal and her boobs got some prime face time with Clinton. Ten bucks says he remembers her boobs longer than he remembers her though.
For example, it seems to me that the fact that Afghanistan elections that elected more women than the floor (25%) should be a real success story. Same with all the girls in school, but because if one were to call them successes, it might reflect well on the US and the current administration, those stories don't appear or are denigrated by the AP or CNN.
Actually, the Taliban is back to killing teachers and family members that allow female students to go to school.
Well, I'll be. Someone actually managed to touch upon just a tiny piece of what I consider to be the BIGGEST black eye for organized feminists and like-minded groups in modern feminist history.
I'm sorry it happened to get touched on by Dave, given his comment most previous to the one to which I'm referring.
Which comment, by the way, I do NOT think Ann should delete, in this instance, and on a number of grounds.
Ann,
I sense quite a bit of hostility in your post towards this young woman.
Also to be so concerned about how she "posed" in the picture sounds petty and envious.
She is cute, is that a problem? Maybe she thinks all the boob stuff is empowering.
And like the secretary says in "The Producers" if you got em flaunt em.
I think Ann protests too much.
Would the picture be ok if Clinton wasn't there?
What if it was a picture of just a bunch of bloggers and this woman struck the pose?
How should she dress and pose in a picture of Clinton and many other bloggers?
In the event that I am in a similar situation I want to make sure I am appropriate. How should I dress and pose?
reader_iam said...
Well, I'll be. Someone actually managed to touch upon just a tiny piece of what I consider to be the BIGGEST black eye for organized feminists and like-minded groups in modern feminist history.
LOL, don't I get credit for saying it 10 months ago?
"In the event that I am in a similar situation I want to make sure I am appropriate. How should I dress and pose?"
Take a look at the other women in Feminist-fisting's photo, for starters.
I got news for you folks. Every woman has breasts. There's no law that says a left wing feminist isn't allowed to show and use hers as she sees fit. And 80% of the top right wing blogs feature "chicks with tits" stretching out anti-left tshirts. It's not like its an isolated phenomenon worth making a fuss over.
Jessica is not exploiting her body to sell her point of view. You want to talk about using your breasts instead of your brains, let's talk about Atlas Shrug's soft porn vlogs. Speaking of which, I find it curious that Steve H was here five times and didn't mention Atlas Jugs or the boob-a-thon he's currently running at his place. Funny, I thought I was joking when I said it was tits for hits sweeps week on this side of the fence.
You want to criticize Jessica's politics fine, but using Jessica's feminism to browbeat her about her support of Clinton, whom you obviously loathe, is just a cheap shot and should be beneath you Ann.
BeckyJ said...
"Jessica & others supporting/defending her: I suggest you read Phyllis Chesler's The Death of Feminism and then respond. Although, I'm guessing that in your Women's STudies classes and programs you were told that Chesler is apostate and not to be read, listened to, or taken seriously."
That is a very important book, one which should be required reading for all feminists. In particular, in relation to this thread:
"Feminism ... [is] inclusive. Feminists are Republicans and Democrats, right-wing conservatives and left-wing radicals; feminists are both religious and antireligious, anti-abortion and pro-abortion, anti-pornography and pro-pornography, anti-gay marrage and pro-gay marriage. Feminists come in all ages and colors, belong to every caste, class and religion, and live everywhere ... I recant none of the visionary ideals of Second Wave Feminism. Rather, it is as a feminist ... that I have to show that something has gone terribly wrong ... The multiculturalist feminist canon has not led to independent, tolerant, diverse or objective ways of thinking. On the contrary: it has led to conformity, totalitarian thinking, and political passivity." Chesler, 1-7.
"[W]omens studies courses tend to focus on the importance of sexual pleasure and the primacy of sexual identity rather than on other 'primary' identities; the right to be a sex worker rather than the right not to be; freedom from rather than freedom of religion, abortion and adoption rather than biological motherhood; motherhood outside of marriage rather than motherhood within marriage; the work of women of color abd if third world women as opposed to the work of white, western women ... I understand that the field ... has been trying to balance women's traditional choices and to expand the dead white male canon. Nevertheless, it is now time for women's studies to include and welcme western traditional, religious and conservative women as part of their vision. It is also time for women's studies to rethink or at least diversify their predominantly left, multicultural and anti-western points of view. In fact, it is essential that they do so." Chesler, 107.
C.G. had this to add
I think this whole thing is rather petty, and I am rather surprised that a seasoned professor would feel the need to "put her in her place." Reminds me of the drama you hear about in high school.
Ann, you really showed her who was boss here, I am sure you are proud.
Has there ever been a post in this website that caused a furor amongst the sinistral side of the blogosphere where someone didn't trot out some version of the phrase, "I am shocked that an esteemed Professor would engage in such . . ."?
I don't notice the dexterous commenters using that same tack with such astonishing frequency (it does happen, though).
I wonder why lefties feel so strongly that professors must engage in only certain kinds of discourse?
Even when posting on their own private blog.
Does the left regard professors that much more highly?
Or do they simply assume all professors are on their side and look to shame them back onto their 'team'?
(and Pastor Jeff, thanks for appreciating my attempts at humor in this thread, at least I amused at least one person out there besides myself)
As far as Prof. Althouse being 'threatened' by young hotness, I think if you asked for a show of hands of folks normally attracted to women, most of them would prefer an evening with Prof. Althouse then one with Jessica (spent platonically, or otherwise).
Jessica strikes me as a scolding, humorless product of her education and chosen peer group, while Professor Althouse strikes me as someone who could offer a great deal more than Jessica ever will intellectually, emotionally and physically.
But that's just my impression, take it for what it is.
That having been said, I always suspected that Clinton's harshest Republican critics were driven in large part by envy--how many twentysomething females would stand in line to service Tom DeLay or Rush Limbaugh for free?
Are you joking? There are dozens, hell, hundreds of women who would line up for either of those guys - for the money or the power or both. It's not pretty but it's a fact. The difference is Clinton was scumbag enough to take advantage of it.
just an observation. I was travelling for work with an attractive young female colleague. our hotel was one that Clinton was staying in to promote his book. His people appeared to be scoping for young women and we were invited to attend the function with him that evening.
i think that clinton's people know what the dawg likes and ensure that there is a regular supply on hand.
paul a'barge said..."Wow, talk about the breast thing over at Feministing's Breasts , there's another one. This babe is totally into showing us her titties!"
That's just hilarious. Thanks, Paul. I have a new theory, also taking into account the comment that Jessica looks like Paula Jones (check her profile photo: she does). The entire luncheon was a scheme by Bill Clinton to meet Jessica. And the reason she's fighting back so hard is that we've called attention to the cover scheme.
And if this is true, and Bill's reading the blogs: hi, Bill.
And now, I'm utterly doomed to dream about Bill Clinton tonight. And not in the way you think. He'll tell me all his troubles and how people don't understand him, and I'll sincerely try to give him advice. It's just ridiculous. I've already had dreams in that form this week, one involving a terrorist and another, Bob Dylan!
Paul: "Ann, Dave's last "bat. shit." comment has to go. Please whack that vulgarity, and ban the troll while you're at it."
No, I prefer to have Jessica's defenders see what kind of people are on that side. That, and I'm waiting for Lindsay Beyerstein to show up and defend me.
LOL, don't I get credit for saying it 10 months ago?
Sure, Drill, absolutely!
I was a fairly new to blogger and commenting then and probably hadn't started blogging yet, but even so, I'm a little surprised that assuming I saw that, I didn't second it big time, considering my feelings and views on the topic of cultural relativism vs. women's treatment and the schizophrenia of some percentage of feminists on those topics if, or at least especially if, partisan politics comes into play. Which feelings and views I've had for many a year.
Prof., you missed your calling, you should have been a stereotypical 'shrink' from 60s and 70s comedic films and sitcoms.
Maybe that's what your dreams are telling you, it's time to change professions and become Dr. Melfi.
John in Nashville: "President Clinton's sexual behavior as President, including his dishonesty about such behavior, was inexcusable. Had he asked me, I would have suggested that he resign his office (though I did not favor impeachment)."
I don't think I've ever said this on the blog before, but I signed the law professor letter againt impeachment and then declined to sign the letter against conviction. I thought he should have resigned once he was impeached. I assume Gore would have become President easily in 2004, if that had happened.
Cereberus: Well put.
Re Dave's 6:28 comment - hmmm, attempting to belittle a woman's viewpoint by way of gratuitous and derogatory comments about her sexual attractiveness. My my; how very ...feminist of you.
Real feminists are lesbians. I don't know who this Jessica poser thinks she is.
One more giggle to try to take the angst out of this thread. reader_iam said...
I said it in the middle of this posting session, your applause of dave was to his quote of me. pats self on back
Take a look at the other women in Feminist-fisting's photo, for starters.
I am a man would that be appropriate? I am all for crossing over every now and then but would a man dressing as an "appropriately dressed" woman be ok in this situation?
Thank you fashion police for you recommendations.
Wow.
The nerve of the woman to claim to be a feminist, pose for a picture with the President and have breasts at the same time.
Wow.
I mean, it is the same sort of logic that says because I don't have breasts I automatically can't be a feminist.
Wow.
Ann... I gotta say... your entire line in this post is reminding me of Bill Frist diagnosing poor Ms. Schiavo via one-way TV.
Are you really serious about all this? I mean, have you ever seen the Lemon-Lyman episode of West Wing? If not, I suggest you take a time out and go watch it cuz you are really not handling this well here.
Peace,
Andrew
Derve: "Also, as freeman hunt said well above, I don't think the woman in the picture intended what came out in that picture, nor is she dressed provacatively in itself, as tRJ seems to suggest. (Sometimes you don't really see it until the photo prints.) It's probably her regular style."
I think if it were just an accident, she would have laughed at herself. Note that I gave her that cover on my first response to her, which was ""Well, Jessica, you do appear to be 'posing.' Maybe it's just an accident.""
I think the fact that she responded to that the way she did is telling.
And you are absolutely right to feel bad about the way sexual harassment hurts all the hardworking people who try to succeed on merit.
XWL: "As far as Prof. Althouse being 'threatened' by young hotness, I think if you asked for a show of hands of folks normally attracted to women, most of them would prefer an evening with Prof. Althouse then one with Jessica (spent platonically, or otherwise)."
Thanks. But don't forget the gay guys who like me!
I ended up skimming. Obviously Ann Althouse can speak for herself but I get the feeling that it's not about boobs or attractiveness but about Clinton.
Lindsay commented: "Do you know what the writers at Feministing actually talk about? They blog about real issues like pay equity, sexual assault, and reproductive rights."
Shall we talk about sexual assault and harassment in the workplace? Do the commenters at Feministing think that those things are serious? Apparently not.
I've got no problem at all with dressing attractively or posing for pictures and unless someone paid for implants big boobs are not her fault.
But I can't take seriously anyone who claims feminist credentials who doesn't see Bill Clinton as a mysogynist pig.
Women worked hard to be taken seriously and to combat the idea of women as a workplace sexual perk for powerful men. And for what?
I'm a pretty regular reader here, and I think Jessica is getting something of a bad rap. Look at the blog group photo on the feministing site:
http://feministing.com/bloggroup.jpg
This is a different angle and she looks considerably more natural. She and the woman in the black dress are flanking Clinton, each turned towards him, and she has a relaxed smile.
Compare that to the pose linked to by this site, in which she does appear to be striking an almost attention-seeking diva-ish pose. I suspect if the first photo were the only one available no one would think she was inappropriate other than possibly under-dressed to meet an ex-president. In her defense, she is dressed no less casually than some of the men.
It's possible, maybe even likely, that the second pose was inadvertant. Probably she was looking from camera to camera and just came across as a little out-of-place.
The question of what supposed feminists are doing at a luncheon with the guy who set their cause back considerably is a good one.
Sip:
That's beneath you. Or should have been.
Blech.
Sincerely,
RIA
And now that I re-read my comment, I could see how it could be read as joke or bad pun.
The latter was inadvertent. The former was certainly not intended.
I was serious.
RIA
Really, really distressing.
Lindsay: That's not enough. Not sufficiently responsive. But, no, I don't read that blog. Why would I? You think I don't follow the news affecting women? I don't need a crappy, tawdry blog to flag stories for me. I have no reason at all to want my feminism filtered through these characters. Why do you?
Redneck Feminist (drumgurl)... " I don't think it is a crime to have boobs that defy gravity. I don't think she was dressed provacatively either. Young women tend to have breasts that stick straight out, even without trying."
It's called a bra.
Anyway, who thinks "Redneck Feminist" is a woman?
Ann,
Didn't you once claim that your blog was civilized, a little cocktail party on the internet, to which you played hostess?
I guess you're the kind of hostess who sees a girl with a hemline above the knees and loudly speculates that she's giving head to the hired help.
Nice work.
Not just any president. A sexual harassing president.
A sexually harassing president who set up a "bimbo eruptions" office to smear women from his past as "trailer trash" and "stalkers," and who may have raped Juanita Broaderick (but we were told we should kick Juanita to the curb and not pay much attention).
I vote Republican these days because of the war. But I started disliking the Democrats during the Clinton years, and part of it was over the way they defended his awful treatment of women (with a few exceptions, such as Senator Feingold).
I remember one Clinton defender right after the Lewinsky scandal broke who was pushing the spin that the lies under oath proved what a "gentleman" Clinton was. Yeah, a "gentleman" who was going to destroy (*) Lewinsky but for the blue dress. Quite a turn from the trial of Clarence Thomas over a comment about pubic hairs on a Coke bottle.
*And will Lewinsky ever be able to escape being the intern who was used for sex in any case? I did a quick check of any mentions of her on Feministing and found an article about condoms in China being named after Clinton and Lewinsky, with Lewinsky's condom being of inferior quality. The blog's comment: Ouch. It?s one thing to have a condom named after you, but a sub-par condom? http://feministing.com/archives/004009.html
Yes, the wolf ruined her life but some of the blogs are refering to him as "Big Dog" in their recaps of his meeting with bloggers.
This is just an occupational hazard for young female liberal bloggers: if you're going to pose with Bill Clinton in photos, you need to aware of how much sexuality you're projecting. That means dressing demurely and not standing in such a way as to line up your breasts or bottom with Clinton's gaze. The cost of not doing that is that people will make jokes. If you forget yourself or it doesn't occur to you that this might happen (as I suspect is the case here) then laugh it off.
Better yet, avoid the whole problem by asking yourself if you really want to compromise your feminist principles my posing for a photo with a groper, adulterer, intern-diddler and possible rapist, just because he was once "the most powerful man on earth."
The rule is no displays. A referee should have thrown a flag on the pose.
There was a cartoon of two pea hens at a restaurant table, and a peacock one table over in full display.
One pea hen to the other : ``Just ignore him.''
Dave:
This is our house and we regulars will stand up for the owner.
It's Friday night and I wish I could take you outside into the real world and kick your butt. What say you pal? I doubt any man who blogs about cats could give me much of a battle. I'd be happy to meet you anywhere in the country.
Just let me know where and when.
Never before in the field of human discourse - or at least, not since Biden's soliloquy at the Alito hearings - have so many said so little using so many words. Sadly, as this thread has worn on, we have repeatedly seen people who are viciously criticizing not any particular view of Ann's but her herself. This is the precise kind of brutal, personal savagery that we have come to expect from liberals, but it remains disappointing to find it here, of all places. It really does beg the question of why, if they find both Althouse and Ann Althouse so wholly disagreeable they don't fuck off and find a blog they like better.
Shaky Barnes said...
"[T]his Jessica clearly is a real nosebleed. Nevertheless I'd like to see her necked and introduce her to my little Republican friend ... if you know what I mean. Damned evolution."
That is every bit as contemptible and out of line as Dave's earlier comment about Ann. Is that your idea of how to punish uppity women - sex with you? It is punishment, I have little doubt, but that scarcely makes it less misogynistic.
I frequently castigate third wavers for their stupefying ability to see misogyny lurking behind every stupid comment they disapprove of, but just because they're paranoid doesn't mean there aren't people out to get them. A point your comment adequately proves.
It's Friday night and I wish I could take you outside into the real world and kick your b--
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Derve: "Also, as freeman hunt said well above, I don't think the woman in the picture intended what came out in that picture..."
In the interest of proper credit, you must have been referring to another commenter. I haven't commented on the picture. I just asked why "feminists" would hang out with Bill Clinton.
Why won't anyone from the Feministing site address knoxgirl's points? Why do "feminists" support Bill Clinton?
hmmm, attempting to belittle a woman's viewpoint by way of gratuitous and derogatory comments about her sexual attractiveness.
Just following in the footsteps of your fearless leader.
As usual, moronic brownshirt fucks can dish it out, but they sure can't take it.
AJ Lynch said...
"Dave ... It's Friday night and I wish I could take you outside into the real world and kick your butt. What say you pal? I doubt any man who blogs about cats could give me much of a battle."
I resent that. I love my cats so much that my blog has a category dedicated to "cat blogging" (so much, in fact, that I avoid arguing with Amanda Marcotte because we have two identical cats), and I still think I could join you in giving the Franciscan a damn good kicking. When we're done, we might drop by Kevin Barrett's place and exercise some, eh..."expressive conduct". ;)
dave said...
"As usual, moronic brownshirt fucks can dish it out, but they sure can't take it."
Speaking as a moronic brownshirt fuck, I'd be happy to have Ann aboard (although the title of Fearless Leader is already reserved, but unfortunately, she just won't sign up. I guess that brown must not suit her, but I can see that stupid certainly suits you. If you don't like this blog or its author, you'll find a simple solution located in the right hand corner of your screen; it looks like a little "X". Do us all a favor and click it.
This really is the Stupidest Place on the Internet™. You're welcome to use that tag free of charge...
Ann Althouse on sexism at Atrios:
You and others are missing the point. I am asking him to condemn the sexist comments, not monitor or censor everything. I'm asking him to show that he cares, that he is some sort of feminist. I'm just sick and tired of liberals and lefties who assume it's taken for granted that they care about feminism. Atrios is a channel for putrid sexist invective. It's irrelevant that the commenters had a smile on their face when they wrote it or think they are cute when they say it. Try living in the real world and speaking like that. It doesn't work. The fact is Atrios and his defenders are more interested in getting him off the hook than in looking to the infection of bigotry in their own house. Why is he not appalled that this is the "community" he's nurturing on his blog? My theory is he doesn't care about feminism, only his side of partisan politics. I'm calling him on that, and he and his defenders have yet to respond to that. The lack of response is in itself instructive. He doesn't care! Feminists, disaggregate yourself from these folks. Why don't you?
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/11/democrats-have-long-long-way-to-go-to.html
Hypocrisy's a bitch. (Courtesy of Julia)
And just why is the blithering idiot impersonating Altmouse so pissy over this? NTodd nails it:
Jessica's tits were blocking Annie's view of Clinton's cock.
Quoting the title of this post unleashed some serious Instalanche action.
Was that intentional? I've never before heard "instalanche" as "ejaculation." Now I fear I always will.
Boy, does this remind me of things.
Like: the cartoon of a guy speaking to a frowning woman who's saying, "Sir, this is a *feminist* bookshop, we don't *have* a humor section."
And, Q. How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb.
A. That's NOT funny.
Sheesh. Does no one read the links or the column referred to earlier?
If there was an Olympic event called Obdurate Point Missing, the Jessica supporters here, for the most point, would clearly be medalist contenders. Likewise if there were an event called Refusal to Respond to the Thesis.
And they never cease to whine about how they get treated. And they never understand why no matter how many times they're told.
This could be exhibit number 1.
Feminists hang out with that guy?
"He supports their having abortions to remain available without consequences." - Bennydick XVI
they think it makes them sound tough. Sort of like that Samantha character in "Sex and the City" was supposed to be so strong and independent.
Oprah's magazine this month has a cover line: "Are girls the new guys?" I'm actually going to read it, for the first time since I stopped writing for it.
amba said...
"[Feminists hang out with that guy?] 'He supports their having abortions to remain available without consequences.'"
Surely that isn't enough. Surely feminism has not been so vitiated that it has become nothing more than the abortion question. I reject such cynicism.
Well, I think we can declare the end of the "conservative" blogosphere. Professor Althouse has proven, once and for all, that she is shallow, petty, and uninterested in furthering intelligent discussion on the Internet. I can only conclude that Professor Althouse is a deeply unhappy person with a particular anger toward young women. I wonder--and perhaps her colleagues should wonder--how this pathology plays out in the classroom and other interactions with students. I suppose she has tenure, though, and that her colleagues and, unfortunately her students, are stuck with her.
I found it really telling that Professor Althouse's first angry comment was posted one minute after "doyle" accurately told the Professor she was embarassing herself. She dismissed his comments as "pathetic" when, in fact, his words could not have been truer.
Professor Althouse if you want to respond in the same intemperate style, feel free. If you want to ban me, feel free. This post is indeed pathetic except for how it revealed far more of your psyche than you surely ever intended.
Looking at the picture, Jessica seems to be on a par with the shortest people in the photo. Shorter people are usually put in front. Now, I can tell from your picture, professor, that people generally wouldn't want to be photographed with you. Completely understandable. I wouldn't want you ruining a photograph of me either. But that's no excuse for your failure to understand a general concept of group photography.
All I get out of this is the impression that Ann Althouse feels threatened by attractive young women with pert breasts, particularly if such a sweet thang might enjoy the company of that lecherous old Bill Clinton. So that's her hang-up, to borrow a phrase from an old generation.
Jeebus help us if a woman can't *pose* for a group photo without getting raked over by women who are supposed to be on the same side.
Btw, Thelma and Louise were fictional characters with their own reasons for being angry at men. They came across a truck driver who, besides sporting mudflaps featuring the busty silhouette, made lewd gestures at them, which set them off to take out their anger by blowing up his truck. OK. That scene in itself is hardly evidence that the iconic silhouette is inherently evil; or, even if it has sexist connotations, cannot be co-opted and subverted by feminists in real life.
Inevitably, in threads like this, the point is reached where both sides, at least once (at least, but not confined to), brings in the blowjob "argument," and always so cleverly, oh-so-coyly worded.
We've managed to achieve that here, already, OK? With emphasis added.
So, what, wherever one is on the spectrum generally, much less specifically, it comes down to sucking cock? Is that it? And specifically in the pejorative, degrading sense which I'd be willing to guess that most of us would agree was best left far, far, far behind, long, long ago? On a number of grounds? 'Cept it keeps getting resurrencted. It keeps getting resurrected. And in these sorts of contexts.
You know, that has some pretty heavy symbolism, too.
Wonderful. Debating feminism. Women. Etc. Etc.
And in the end it comes down to blowjobs. There's irony for you.
Well, I guess we've collectively furthered something. Just not our points of views.
Jaclyn said...
"the[re] [is] rampant misogyny in the progressive movement, of which this asinine character assasination is a symptom"
Well said. It is something that affects conservatives and liberals in equal measure, neither of whom seem to recognize it, but it is rather more ironic when found among liberals.
It's interesting, isn't it? One reads the comments here and at Feministing's sister thread, and its readily apparent that both Ann and Jessica have attracted a family of commenters who are very loyal to them. That is commendable to some extent, but I think the commenters here are perhaps a little distinguished by the fact that they can defend Ann and disagree with her at the same time, while the Feministing comment thread is basically a follow-the-leader game with commenters sparring to see who can come up with the most vile way of describing the enemy.
Goodness this thread has grown. Here's what I don't understand. Apologies if covered and I missed it.
Jessica is a supposedly intelligent women. She is invited to lunch with a President who had a very famous run-in with a dark-haired intern. This blogger has a superficial resemblance to the intern. She is placed prominently in front of the President and then is surprised when people make the connection? And complains about it?
I see this as a problem in general with the Democratic Party (I'll assume Jennifer is a democrat). They are clueless when it comes to imagery. I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone there what the symbolism of putting a Monica-esque women front and center would be? 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.
This is the same Party that brought us Dukakis in a tank and John Kerry windsurfing, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But I'm repeatedly astonished at how blind to imagery the Democratic Party is.
I randomly clicked on one of Jessica's old blog months, October2005.
The first thing I saw was a photograph of a satin vagina. Jessica praises the vagina and its creator, and encourages readers to buy more wares:
So if you have a hankering to own a pussy pen or vagina candle, now you know where to go.
It seems to me that Jessica was the perfect candidate for Mr. Clinton's event, as both are fans of the vagina.
And, yes, you can bet your sweet...ass--hell, why resist now?--that I include myself in that indictment.
Oh, crap: And I kid you not (I was so amazed, I took a snapshot of the page):
vh: uassz
Well, yes, I am. But I'm not alone, in this case, I don't think
While we're on the topic, I'd like an answer to something that's been bothering me for a while:
What is the source of the idea that "voluptuous" has anything to do with big breasts?
Frightwig said...
"All I get out of this is the impression that Ann Althouse feels threatened by attractive young women with pert breasts"
I've really been trying to avoid commenting on these absurd assertions which have now been made repeatedly in this thread, but as XWL has already said, this accusation is simply absurd. Is it really so hard for you people to grasp that some callow, pert twentysomething is not the epitome of hotness? Why, because that's what makes the cover of "Maxim magazine"? That's not a very feminist premise. I'm sure that Jessica is very pretty for her age, but what is she - 24? 25? Please. She's just a kid! In fifteen or twenty years we can talk about whether she's in the same league as Ann, but for now, geez, you've got to be kidding.
Suddenly I'm really, really glad I never went to the UofM law school, if this is what the faculty focus on.
And it's a female faculty member. itvrjdyEwww.
University of Wisconsin, that is. Damn typos.
Well, all you folks who took advantage of this comments section to attack me, in fact, you've made the argument against yourselves. Despite repeated requests, you never addressed the question asked. You mightily tried to put up a smokescreen, but no one serious is fooled. You did not address the question. I'm going to have to give you an F and deem all the things you haven't addressed conceded. I hope you understand that. I think you do, though I predict that you'll deny it. I'm giving you credit for not being dumb. But F, nonetheless. If you don't understand this comment, go back an reread and try to think through your mental block. Good luck!
Jeff: Just pretend your grade for the semester depends on stating the question that I'm saying my opponents keep ignoring. I'll give you another chance to do a decent job. It's just gotten boring to restate it. I'm just going to give grades for attempts. I'll be generous and give you a D, with an option to rewrite.
You know, I wasn't going to comment. Didn't want to add to this circus. But it takes a lot of chutzpah to refer to a blog that you've never read as "a crappy, tawdry blog" in a post on your own blog entitled "Let's take a closer look at those breasts." And it's not just any post, but, by your own admission, the highest trafficked post in your site's history. Good work!
I know you'd like to think that you're raising important issues here, Ann, but who's kidding who? Your original post was just a lame jab at someone who wasn't even dressed provocatively. Then when she objected (calmy) to being singled out for ridicule, you doubled-down and made it even more personal, casually dismissing something (her blog) which she has clearly put a lot of effort into and which you've never even read. It doesn't get much more shallow and petty than that.
And in case you think you've provoked some important discussion, take another look at the comments here. They're equal parts inane and misogynist. Again, good work!
>(can you be a feminist and have your picture taken with Clinton?)
Well, I guess you can if you're, you know, invited.
Which I am sure has nothing whatsoever to do with this little meow-fest.
Which, since we are apparently devolving into the "go fug yourself" branch of feminism: ann whoever-you-are-i've-never-heard-of-you-before-today,
you do have a rather mean little mouth, at least in that photo. Honestly, I think I would have thought so even without seeing what's come out of it.
and yes, Virginia, feminists can actually talk about sex. Enjoy it, even. Hell, for that matter, so could the rest of you, 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.
those scandalous mudflaps on Feministing, btw? are a woman with her middle finger extended.
Consider that image by way of a friendly parting gesture.
and yes, Virginia, feminists can actually talk about sex. Enjoy it, even. Hell, for that matter, so could the rest of you, 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.
Two questions.
(1) Who wrote or implied that feminists cannot talk about or enjoy sex?
(2) As a feminist, do you find marital infidelity and sexual harassment to be "tame exploits"?
Dearie me, what could be less interesting than a 300+ comment-long post about breasts? Breasts are not interesting, at least not to me. Showing your breasts is not "transgressive", it's regressive. Sex is just not that interesting. But since there's a hell of a lot of muck to roll in here, why not?
Being a man who likes men, what I'm interested in is penises. I like guy's butts too; the fact that all people, of both sexes and sexual orientations, can appreciate nice butts might be the one universal common thread that ties the world together. But we're not talking about butts here. Jessica didn't show her butt (well, not in the literal sense anyway).
What I want to see is men showing off their bulging pants in group shots with Bill Clinton. But that will never happen, because every guy in the photograph we're discussing has a small penis. How do I know this? It's not because they're leftoid bloggers. It's because guys with large packages aren't political hacks. The well-hung don't have time for party politics.
Anyway, I just thought I'd add the meat to this bodacious boob buffet. Now back to the trenchant (emphasis on the "trench") writing of dave, who seems to think that it's acceptable to call a woman a "cunt" in defense of feminism. If dave's a little too earthy for you, why not read the high-minded critical writing of Buttrocket?
Exactly how is a feminist supposed to look, act, and dress? Should she have made every effort not to be presentable or look nice?
Do you have to be ugly to be a feminist?
The bloggers who attended the big Clinton lunch, have slobbered all over their blogs testifying to what a "great day" it was and how "patriotic" they felt to be meeting The Man.
Sell outs.
They'll back Hillary for him, warts (including sexual harrassment and oral sex with a naive YOUNG WOMAN intern) and all.
They find him irresistible, to the point feminists forgive him his trespasses against them and all women, just for the chance to hook up with Mr. Clinton for sixty minutes or so.
Ack.
Knoxgirl:
1. the strong idealization by feminists of the era of the sexual revolution--this era really brought the birth of feminism and it's very romanticized, no pun intended by a lot of them. As it is, obviously, by a lot of liberals.
Hmmmm. If that's true, it's very ill-considered on feminists' part.
It was a very complicated time. Actually, the sexual revolution was (speaking from my own experience but also that of other women I knew) a miserable time for women until feminism hit a year or two later. We were exploited and demeaned and disrespected. Many of us were just helplessly available (you were "uptight" if you weren't) and many guys just helped themselves. Seriously!
Feminism, at the beginning, truly "empowered." That's become a cliché but it's a good description of the actual experience. You found your voice, you claimed the right to define yourself. The values of the sexual revolution survived in a healthy way, at first, in that one of the things women felt entitled to was to own their own sexuality -- their own "engine." It was understood to be the vital root of every other kind of autonomy and authenticity. But somewhere that got lost, politicized, flattened into various kinds of caricatures -- militant lesbian, pro-porn, anti-porn, "sex-positive," and then in reaction, back to chastity. No acknowledgement that experience, not peer-pressured media mimicry but deep and risky and self-directed, could be "empowering."
So it's not that simple, or it shouldn't be.
Jesus Christ, you are stupid. Have you nothing more interesting to think about, Althouse?
Well hell, I try to focus on the substantive most of the time, but I grant myself license to dwell on the fanciful or even downright prurient once in awhile.
But it does strike me as ironic, humorous, and perhaps even hypocritical that someone who calls himself "ButtRocket" would dare to criticize Ann's thought patterns.
"Exactly how is a feminist supposed to look, act, and dress? Should she have made every effort not to be presentable or look nice?"
Feminists should all wear burlap teddies!
Your original post was just a lame jab at someone who wasn't even dressed provocatively.
Umm...no it wasn't. I realize that this thread is over 300 posts long, and it must pain you to actually know what you're talking about...but here is the text of the original post:
"Come on, you'd fly to New York City, to eat "southern chicken" with Bill Clinton and pose for a group photo, wouldn't you? And then you'd go home and blog about how he's good on your issues and how you're totally impressed, right? And, omigosh, "He's got beautiful blue eyes."
Hey, this blogger wrangling... it's easy when you've got blue eyes and chicken.
And check out the photo:
[picture here]
Let's just array these bloggers... randomly."
The intern comment that started all this mock-outrage was raised by a commenter, and not Ann herself (as she points out in the original post this thread is based off).
I think the Professor is the only one who can give you an F, but I'd at least recommend you take a stab at your homework (rather than hearing things through someone else's filter of the events).
Boo.
Katherine Harris was ridiculed because she posed that way for the entirety of a live interview.
It's pretty asinine, this whole discussion. But now I guess I've gone and participated in it.
You are a joke, whoever the fuck you are. You have invented an entire world out of the rabid imaginings you experienced upon witnessing this one photograph? Could you possibly be any more smug? You didn't "call" shit on anyone. You never made a valid point to begin with.
Get a life.
And seriously, for those of you who want to dog on a feminist for having lunch in proximity to Clinton? Gimme a break. You wanna tell me you wouldn't be intrigued enough to go? It's not an endorsement.
From Jessica's blog: I mean, there's just something weird (awesome weird, but still) about sitting across from Bill Clinton.
She's not endorsing him, just noting that it's "awesome" to be in his presence.
Can you please offer one substantive critique of a feminist blogger, attractive or otherwise, young or otherwise, attending a meeting with Bill Clinton?
I can offer five reasons:
Elizabeth Ward Gracen
Gennifer Flowers
Juanita Broaddrick
Paula Jones
Monica Lewinsky
Jessica has every right to complain about people commenting on her completely reasonable behavior- or did she go suck Clinton off after the picture was taken? Do you know something I don't?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा