I continue to stand by my comments and to assert -- with ever increasing confidence -- that my opponents all have some combination of: poor reading skills, lack of a sense of humor, anti-feminism, calcified political hackitude. Moreover, they've got some scary blindness about the way to help poor Hillary Clinton, who was the whole reason they were wrangled into Bill's presence in the first place. Bumbling all weekend over Jessica's breasts? You people are boobs.I mean, is this what Peter Daou hoped to achieve when he gathered those bloggers around Bill, supposedly -- I think -- to reward them for their faithful service shoring up Bill's tantrum over that ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11"?
Last week, the lefty bloggers maladroitly focused attention on the issue of whether Clinton mishandled the terrorism threat, which caused many people to watch a film they wouldn't have bothered with and to marshall the evidence that he, in fact, had screwed up. Then, the bloggers who performed that dubious service were lured by lunch in the presence of the ex-president, and when they went back to their blogs and enthused about his blue eyes and how delightfully charmed they were by his aura and, doing so, provoked a tiny sprinkle of mockery, they flipped out for days on end. Their freak out just got everyone talking about Bill's old sex problems again.
As they cranked up into a higher and higher pitch -- doing their damnedest to show Bill they really, really like him -- they let loose with the most horrendous sexist and ageist slurs, laying them open to the unanswerable charge that they are political hacks at heart whose commitment to feminism is thoroughly laughable.
The boob-blogging continues apace. You've got to wonder what they'll bobble into next.
IN THE COMMENTS: We talk about an image that I say I couldn't find. Many months later I see it here.
पोस्ट्स
१८१ टिप्पण्या:
Solly. You roose, dwagon wady.
Since there are several thousand comments and responses on this I'm going to have to admit that I'm not completely informed. Let me know if I'm summarizing correctly. (I have a simple question at the end. )
1. ex-president has lunch with some bloggers.
2. In a photo op the blogger right in front of the president has a large rack. (sort of looks like she's sticking it out but I'm not really sure)
3. Ann Althouse makes a crack about the woman with the rack (referencing Monica Lewinsky.)
4. Woman with the rack is offended. Cites feminism as the reason. (At this point I start to get a little lost)
5. Ann Althouse gets annoyed because she thinks feminist support of Clinton is hypocritical. She responds by further insulting the woman.
6. Left wing culture warriors ride to the fight. Excellent weekend drama ensues.
Here's my question for Ann Althouse:
Was the initial post meant as a brief joke? Or was it intended as something more meaningful and complex. Because the post that started it all off really seems like the sort of thing you'd get from Dennis Miller's big board, if the woman with a rack wasn't an unknown.
I ask because I guess she's some of feminist blogger or something and I'm curious if this is much ado about nothing or if I'm missing the big picture.
I'm curious if this is much ado about nothing or if I'm missing the big picture.
This is much ado about nothing. But there are people to whom it is evidently a matter of critical importance. Everyone needs a hobby, after all.
ann,
i find your tone and comments entirely unbecoming of a law professor. i would hope snide personal attacks are not a staple of your normal discourse.
as for the actual "controversy," i asked my gf if this girl was dressed inappropriately or "posing." it took her all of 2 seconds to say she was dressed fine and was simply standing there.
maybe this is a generation thing, but i see no problem with it.
as to the general comments that "the bloggers are dressed inappropriately," i am sure the organizers of this event told them to dress business casual, probably on the president's (or one his aide's) direction.
as for clinton "hurting feminism," honestly, just what are you talking about? did he hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?
as for clinton "hurting feminism," honestly, just what are you talking about? did he hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?
No, but he did when he sent her out to lie for him about a case of sexual harassment.
"i find your tone and comments entirely unbecoming of a law professor. i would hope snide personal attacks are not a staple of your normal discourse."
You, a law professor!
"as for clinton "hurting feminism," honestly, just what are you talking about? did he hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?"
No, but he sure hurt the long-term safety of the world by sending her to clink glasses with Kim Jong Il and doing nothing substantive about Saddam Hussein.
"Pursued by boobs."
I still can't help but think of the whole situation as that scene from "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex".
At least if Mark Burnett had produced that meeting, instead of Peter Daou, he would have invited equal numbers Asians, Hispanics, Blacks and Whites.
Diversity, thy name is Netroots (or not).
(and hasn't the, 'I can't believe that yoooooouuuuu, a laaawwwww professor' whine been ridiculed often enough to have been put to rest?)
Everyone should just watch something funny on YouTube, and chill.
Or, contemplate the greatness that is Richard Starkey.
Garble: No, you've mischaracterized the original post, which mocked the bloggers for effusing over Clinton. A commenter made a wisecrack about Monica Lewinsky. The person you refer to as "woman with the rack" showed up in the comments to refocus things on her, at which point, I decided to write a post making fun of her for sort of unwittingly and indirectly claiming to be good-looking.
To write the post, I visited her blog and saw that it was loaded with breast images! She was a total breast-blogger! How is that not hilarious? I then made fun of her ridiculous hypocrisy. Other bloggers who couldn't laugh and felt they had to support her or whatever, then spent the weekend trying to make a sexism charge stick to me, in the course of which they revealingly descended into calling me sexist names. There's lots more to it, but try harder and you might get it straight. You've chosen an apt nickname for yourself though, I will say.
Palladian: I really looked for the Woody Allen image to illustrate this post, but couldn't find it.
More self-justifying follow-up posts, please, Ann!
For those of us who gave up on the comment threads quite some time ago, I'd just like to thank Ann for keeping all of us abreast on recent developments.
(Garble, like I've already said a handful of time, Ann wasn't the one to make the 'intern' crack -- and if you took the time to look at the original article....instead of what people have told you about what was written, you would know that.)
Having given up around 300 posts when nothing new was being said (nor for the 200+ before that) all I can do is reiterate the thought that if there were an Olympic event for Obdurately Missing the Point, there are waaaaaay too many medal contenders among the Ann-bashers and Jessica-supporters.
Add that to their total unwillingness to answer the original thesis in either post with anything but attempts to divert the themes into something they can control.
And, they're never, ever at this rate going to understand why they're so rapidly becoming a permanent minority.
Good gosh. I post and immediately preceding my post, while I was composing, appears a poster child example of my point.
It's as if Ann announced in a crowd of Lefties "Hey!! There's a great, big, smoking, ticking red bomb over there about to go off and kill everyone in the room!" and the responses she gets amount to, "well, just because bombs are traditionally black doesn't mean they can't be red, and, anyway, who decides what the best bomb color is, and isn't this a no smoking area, and 'how dare a *law professor* do the equivalent of shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater, and you're a (insert one of various vapid insults here) you rotten rightwinger you."
Ann comes back the Attorney-General Gonzales defense that she can't reveal her logic because it's a blog secret and would undermine her war against not-in-her-view feminists. You must just take it at her word that " with ever increasing confidence -- that my opponents all have some combination of: poor reading skills, lack of a sense of humor, anti-feminism, calcified political hackitude." So she must have been joking when she said:
" 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 harassment seriously, and posing in front of him like that irks me, as a feminist.... Alternatives: She's a clueless fool.... I have a new theory, also taking into account the comment that Jessica looks like Paula Jones .... 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.
Oh gawd I'm laughing so hard.... and then goes on to post this:
" 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. ... 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. Despite repeated requests, you never addressed the question asked. You mightily tried to put up a smokescreen, but no one serious is fooled.... I think feminism lost a lot because feminist women, who were mostly liberal, felt motivated to stay on his side. "
This is all bullsh@t. I've posted how the current Republican administration has deeply undermined the "liberty, safety, health, and economic interests of women." Over the last thirteen years, A young feminist would support President's Clinton's track record versus the current administration.
And then finally:
" Moreover, they've got some scary blindness about the way to help poor Hillary Clinton, who was the whole reason they were wrangled into Bill's presence in the first place."
Former President Clinton is still loved throughout the world and an influential diplomat. It is even possible to argue the most influential and He want to help his wife. Why wouldn't Jessica want a chance to meet the former President? It seems because Ann and others still can't get over the blowjob.
peetyport: "This is all bullsh@t. I've posted how the current Republican administration has deeply undermined the "liberty, safety, health, and economic interests of women.""
So you're defense of Clinton is that Bush is bad. Uh-huh. I'm sure he appreciates you trenchant defense.
"I'm betting Jessica will turn up working for Hillary's net-campaign, or Bill's Presidential Library."
Well, after all this big blog dustup, it's less likely, which is possibly the real reason she's so pissed. I'm sure Hillary has some say in these things. But even without this attention, how can someone with a sexed up blog like that work on Hillary's campaign? That wouldn't make any sense. In fact, there are an awful lot of lefty bloggers who have written a hardcore sexist slurs against older women in the course of this weekend's to-do. Hillary should be pissed at the lot of them. I come from Hillary's generation and suspect that my sensibilities are pretty close to hers about some of these things. Plus, from her life experiences, she must despise these young women who try to climb by using their sexuality. Whether Jessica deliberately presented herself sexually at the lunch may be open to question, but it is just flatly on the record that her blog uses sexuality for promotional purposes.
Ann your post was superfluous. I posted both Clinton's track record and the current administrations. Clinton doesn't need my help but you obviously have no defense.
Like Ann, I don't see that the Jenniferists understand the simple question. They are clearly blind to the symbolism of a nubile young woman in a picture with Bill Clinton. Was it their intention to resurrect all memories of Monica? Geeeze.
As I said long before, Dukakis on a tank.
Fenrisulven,
I posted both Clinton's track record and President Bush's. I defined both and chose to align myself with those closer to my beliefs. Whether you feel uncomfortable when confronted with facts about the current administrations policies is not my concern.
What charges was President Clinton tried and convicted? Again, I'll be more than willing to have a discussion about whose policies were better for women.
Ann,
You've let yourself get wrapped 'round the axle of this topic. I know because I've been there. Ugly commenters love to drag us in the mud by twisting just enough of what's we've said to make us feel like we need to respond.
Go to a movie. Have dinner with a friend. But walk away. It's not worth it and you can't argue with people unwilling to respect facts or an intellectual foundation for their position. It'd be like the Pope debating these Islamo-Fascists: A pointless waste of time.
I'm sorry I offended you HaloJonesFan by writing "bullsh@t". I been on the net before it had pictures and some habits die hard. However, your post was more than superfluous and didn't address any real issue (much like Ann). And I'm a pansy? This must be the humor Ann referencing.
What charges was President Clinton tried and convicted?
He settled the Paula Jones sexual harassment case for $650,000.
Wow, after wading through all of that hate, I say: Ann, take the rest of the day off and get a fresh start tomorrow...
That woman's breasts have been blown way out of proportion. Doesn't anyone have a sense of humor anymore??
In the nether regions of the comments on another post on this subject, Reader I am had a dialogue with another commenter which showed there is a generational divide on this topic.
Women who were adults during L'Affaire Lewinsky saw Clinton undermine feminists and saw feminists themselves lose credibility by supporting the Clintons.
Young women of today missed it completely because they were adolescent girls.
How sad.
XWL got the booby prize. I vote for Fenn for the Rookie of the Week!
Look, some of you are taking this way too seriously.
Has it occurred to anyone that Jessica may have been hiding squirrels in there?
These are facts and not spin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach021399.htm):
"The United States Senate acquitted William Jefferson Clinton yesterday on charges that he committed perjury and obstruction of justice to hide sexual indiscretions with a onetime White House intern, permitting the 42nd president to complete the remaining 708 days of his term.
After a tumultuous year of scandal that tested the Constitution and tried the nation's patience, neither of the two articles of impeachment brought by the House garnered a simple majority, much less the two-thirds necessary to convict Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I alleging perjury was defeated on a 45 to 55 vote at 12:21 p.m. Just 18 minutes later, Article II charging obstruction failed on a 50 to 50 tie. Five Republicans joined all 45 Democrats in supporting full acquittal.
It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the said William Jefferson Clinton be, and he hereby is, acquitted of the charges in the said articles," declared Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist..."
Maybe Fenrisulven knows more than the honorable Chief Justice? I think not.... :-)
Ann--
You've got them by the short hairs, go ahead and shake.
"Women who were adults during L'Affaire Lewinsky saw Clinton undermine feminists and saw feminists themselves lose credibility by supporting the Clintons."
Really? I wasn't living in the US then but what I remember is that feminists were _furious_ with Clinton (and Lewinsky) but decided that overall, he was better than the alternatives (ie republicans).
It's called Realpolitik, the art of setting priorities and making tough choices when none of the alternatives are very appealing.
Althouse says:
Well, after all this big blog dustup, it's less likely, which is possibly the real reason she's so pissed. I'm sure Hillary has some say in these things. But even without this attention, how can someone with a sexed up blog like that work on Hillary's campaign? That wouldn't make any sense. In fact, there are an awful lot of lefty bloggers who have written a hardcore sexist slurs against older women in the course of this weekend's to-do. Hillary should be pissed at the lot of them. I come from Hillary's generation and suspect that my sensibilities are pretty close to hers about some of these things. Plus, from her life experiences, she must despise these young women who try to climb by using their sexuality. Whether Jessica deliberately presented herself sexually at the lunch may be open to question, but it is just flatly on the record that her blog uses sexuality for promotional purposes.
There's a difference between holding your nose and picking the best of a bad lot, and openly embracing a turd, declaring that a turd smells as sweet as a rose, and attacking those that question the turd's sweetness.
Pres. Clinton ran as a conservative Democrat, governed as a conservative thanks to a split Congress (though he did get Justice Ginsburg on the court, a decidedly un-conservative act), and from a domestic politics stand point was quite successful.
However, his failures with how he handled the military, how he used the military, and how he attacked the problems presented by the spread of terrorism are the biggest black marks against him. His 'intern problem' damaged his ability to be an effective Commander in Chief.
A man who was a man, and not some emotionally insecure malignant narcissist (just try and read this book in total if you have any doubts about that assessment), would have stepped aside when he was caught with his pants down. His private behavior was private behavior, until he got caught. If he believed in his policies, and was truly committed to the advancement of his ideas, rather than his own personal glory, he would have resigned after being impeached and watched as Pres. Al Gore lead the nation.
But the only thing larger than his libido would seem to be his ego.
Realpolitik may be an excuse for voting for him in '92 or '96, but it's no excuse for celebrating him in '06.
Also, all these netroots folks screaming about the Iraq War would seem to be choosing strange bedfellows in jumping under the covers with either Pres. or Sen. Clinton.
very strange comments here.
we are "leftist political hacks" because we dont see the big deal with a woman dressed in business casual with the former president?
we are anti-feminist because we dont see why a 20-something blogger shouldn't meet with the ex-president?
we are anti-feminist because we don't see Clinton as some dangerous marauding menace to women because he screwed up with a 21+ intern who came on to him?
typical right-wing logic imo.
sorry if the "you, a law professor" is some old hat attack here. however, i would be shocked to see any law prof i had act with such .. a lack of courtesy. maybe in WI its ordinary to attack the looks of your opponents.
Fen: I agreed to sign the lawprof letter and after I did, its text was changed to include the point that perjury was not an impeachable offense. I'm still upset about that. The original letter that I agreed to sign referred to the diversity of opinion about why he shouldn't be impeached and did not commit to that specific reason, which I didn't agree with. I learned a lesson from that experience.
Anyway, the House has the power to impeach, and it impeached him. The Senate has the power to try, and he's removed from office if 2/3 vote for "conviction" which is the word in the Constitution. There was debate at the time whether the question for the Senate is whether the charges against him are true or whether it's a more general policy decision of whether he ought to be removed from office. It's not something that the courts can review, but a matter for the Senators to determine. The fact is there was no 2/3 vote, so he wasn't removed. It's correct to say he wasn't "convicted."
The problem here Ann is that you have been born several centuries too late. Readers of Swift and Pope would have gotten the point immediately.
Pity that so many of these humorless lefty commenters are too caught up in their outrage that anyone would consider feeding babies to the rich to see the point you were making.
You! A law professor!
The boob-blogging continues apace.
if you hate it so much, why did you start it?
your reputation has been badly damaged by this. you should have apologized for objectifying jessica days ago.
I spent some time today musing about a letter I would write to Professor Althouse's deans at UW asking them if they like one of their tenured professors writing the following comment publicly:
"Duh... do you think you could get everything you write backwards? It could be pretty amazing."
This is such a wonderful contribution to the public debate, isn't it? It is so learned, scholarly, tempered. If I were the dean, this is exactly how I would want my faculty members to spend their time. And it is exactly how I would want my faculty members to demonstrate how subjects such as feminism and politics should be debated.
Then I thought of also highlighting part of the original post, where Professor Althouse takes a page right out of the "7th Grader's Guide to Wit" with, "Jessica: I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself.)"
I don't know, maybe I still will. Or maybe I'll do an email broadcast to her faculty colleagues and some select (and liberal) members of the Wisconsin legislature.
On second thought, no. I'm going to go read a good blog instead.
So there's a difference of opinion here about whether I should "go ahead and shake" or take the rest of the day off.
Don't worry, I've spent almost no time reading the other bloggers. I'm able to see what they are saying without really wallowing in it. There's a lot of repetition and a lot of dumb stuff that I can tell would piss me off if I spent any time with it, which I don't. I have policed the comments over here to some extent, and I just respond when it amuses me.
I don't really know why they are paying so much attention to me. I don't think it does either of the Clintons any good.
It's kind of funny to have kicked up the dustup of the week... about almost nothing.
1. Slurs? They were meant to be funny!. Don't you have a sense of humor? Guess not! Poor you.
2. Here's why bloggers are sucking up to the Clintons: they control A LOT of money and influence. The farther left they go, the more the left wins, and the more the Marhshall Whitman types lose.
You know, it would be great if these guys had the ability to sit back like you and be "intellectually" "honest," but they're trying to undo what they see as a lot of damage to this country. Maybe they're gonna get burned by Billary, it's possible. But they're in the arena, and interested in stuff other than another woman's body.
The Exalted said...
"as for clinton "hurting feminism," honestly, just what are you talking about? did he hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?"
Are we to assume that is a concession that George W. Bush was making a bold step for racial progress and feminism by appointing Condi Rice the first black, female Secretary of State? After all, if Clinton appointing the "first [insert demographically-identifiable group here] to be [insert government post here]" is progress for [insert pressure group here], then so is Bush. Personally I think it's a little silly to measure the quality of a President's appointments by the contents of their shorts -- indeed, if there is the faintest hint that a person was appointed for their race or gender, I'd say there's a problem with that -- but to each their own.
My dear Professor Althouse, when are you going to learn the first fact about pinko chicks? They don't have boobs, they have protruding platforms for political buttons.
A small irony: the word verification for this message was "sxalker." It sounds vaguely obscene, and I really hate vagueness.
Help me out here, Ann - which is more reprehensible:
A, getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
B, starting a war of aggression?
The elephant in the living room you're ignoring is that the majority of Americans these days would prefer Clinton in the Oval Office attended routinely by hordes of topless strippers to the current, morally righteous, inhabitant.
Leaving aside the main conversation here --
Re: Palladian:
No, but he sure hurt the long-term safety of the world by sending her to clink glasses with Kim Jong Il . . .
A few months ago, this would have been exactly my line too. However, during the recent missile launch contretemps, senior members of Clinton's North Korean policy team ran some op-eds explaining what they thought was the appropriate response, viz. to reopen hostilities with North Korea by attacking their launch facilities.
Reading the kind of advice senior Clinton Administration foreign policy specialists were giving, I realise now I should be thanking my lucky stars Clinton only sent Albright to clink glasses with Kim Jong Il. Because his foreign policy team was full of lunatics and incompetents, who'd have reduced Seoul to a smoking crater if they'd had their way. And of course, his NSA advisor was Sandy Berger (the man with the pants! Full of top secret documents from the National Archives).
I have a lot more respect for (and sympathy for) Clinton, as I see more of the kind of people he was stuck with as advisors. He actually did pretty well, all things considered. We looked awful chumps giving North Korea advanced nuclear technology (the KEDO light water reactor technology) in exchange for their pretending they weren't weaponising uranium behind our backs (we forgot about "verify"). But things could have been loads worse. Loads.
Are we to assume that is a concession that George W. Bush was making a bold step for racial progress and feminism by appointing Condi Rice the first black, female Secretary of State? After all, if Clinton appointing the "first...
Well if Bill gets points for appointing a woman (minority representing 52% of voters), then George should get 4 times more points for Powell (minority representing only 12% of voters (scoring him as black, not black male) and 8 times more for Condi (minority representing 6% of voters, blck female)
Balfegor, well the good news is that after his plea, it's very unlikely that Sandy could ever get an appointment that requires confirmation. There being enough Senators that understand security to put holds on him till Hell freezes over.
Former President Clinton is still loved throughout the world and an influential diplomat. It is even possible to argue the most influential and He want to help his wife.
Wow, Clinton merits a capital H!
pluripotentate said..."'The boob-blogging continues apace.' if you hate it so much, why did you start it?"
You're not that smart, are you? Read it again. What does "boob-blogging" mean in context? Some people understand puns, some are running way behind the crowd yet somehow imagine that they are winning. Yikes.
"your reputation has been badly damaged by this. you should have apologized for objectifying jessica days ago"
Yeah. Yeah. You are about as perceptive as a brick. If "objectifying" women really is a serious concern -- and I doubt very much that you really think it is -- why aren't you all distressed about Jessica's blog? It openly seeks attention through the objectification of women. Do you care or not?
Charles Giacometti: Are you enjoying your tattletale fantasy? Just think what would happen if the faculty found out about my top secret blog! And, oh, the damage you could do by telling the liberal members of the legislature about me. They love censoring speech probably, or at least they do in your lurid fantasy.
Phoenician in a time of Romans said..."Help me out here, Ann - which is more reprehensible: A, getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or B, starting a war of aggression?"
The issue of whether Bush is a good President has no relevance to the issue under discussion. Moreover, I don't care if the President gets a blowjob. I do, however, care if the President subjects women to sexual harassment, of course. Don't you? And I do want the President to figure out competently what needs to be done for national security. If he's distracted by sex in the Oval Office, then he is committing a great wrong. Inattention to duty is more reprehensible, I would say, than attempting to do one's duty but making the wrong decision.
duplicate_user_id said...
Please point out a URL that accuses the Clenis of having a habit of sodomy.
duh, I assume your quibble is about the issue of whether Sodomy=BJ. So much for your classical education. It does.
Sodomy is a general legal term used by adults to cover a variety of alternative sexual activity.
here's your link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law
A sodomy law is a law which defines certain sexual acts as sex crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy — and its synonyms buggery, crime against nature, unnatural act, deviant sexual intercourse and a range of similar euphemisms — is rarely spelled out in the legislation, but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act which does not lead to procreation.
Actually, Professor Althouse, my musing was designed to make you think twice about how unprofessional your behavior is. The mocking tone of your response merely demonstrates that you apparently have no conception about how unprofessionally you are behaving. As to your continuing attempt at 7th-grade wit (your top secret comment, about as lame as your comments on the woman's looks), of course your colleagues know you blog. However, I have no doubt any of them with a brain would ever bother to read it, hence my need to highlight one or two insipid comments out of the tens of thousands you have made.
And, as to the liberal legislators, I am the last person who would suggest you be censored. (It's fascinating that you leapt on that interpretation. We already know so much about your psyche, but the desire to censor people is a new aspect.) As a voracious reader, I vote with my feet, and will simply read other, better blogs. I would never have the government intrude on such a thing as academic freedom, unlike your party. Rather, I think your deans should, appropriately, evaluate your performance and how well you are representing your institution. I would tell your legislators because I think your state's taxpayers deserve a full day's work from you, and the dedication to your profession that one should reasonably expect. In Massachusetts, we are smart enough to not have a public law school (there are far too many third-rate lawyers already without having the public trough tapped to create new ones), but, if we did, I would expect the full professors to actually be dedicated to scholarship, and not to trite, shallow commentary.
But, all my clarification aside, I made it clear I was not going to bother with any such "fantasy." I was musing.
Now, ask yourself, is this how a professor should write and behave? Is that a simple enough question?
Oh, and could you also discuss your use of the word, "Duh" as an example of intelligent, informed discussion? I was so distracted by your bizarre censorship fantasy that I failed to realize you never answered the gist of my remark.
Also, if you could, please cite some scholarship on the times that Democrats have advocated censorship of academics versus Republicans doing the same? Or are you just going to leave it at shallow commentary?
(Silly me. I know the answers to these questions already.)
did [Clinton] hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?
No. But Albright showed (no surprise) that a woman in power can be just as nasty as a man.
For example, when she saw genocide erupting in Rwanda, she made sure to block everything which could've lessened the death count (which ended up a jaw-dropping 800,000) - including having UN peace keppers reduced in numbers - while Clinton never bothered to have a single high level meeting about it. This was when she was Ammbassador to the UN, and apparently it impressed Clinton enough to make her the first female Secretary of State.
I appreciate that that was a milestone for women entirely apart from my views of how well she did in the office. So how come Democrats never give Bush credit for the greater milestones of that sort he's made in his presidency?
Also, some commenters have already observed that some Democrats present themselves, publicly, as feminists but are, privately, hardcore misogynists. And that covert misogyny became public and with real victims.
I dunno...I'm one of those people who thinks the character of a president matters more than anything else. *shrug*
But caring about character makes it hard to love any of them. Bloggers should probably preserve their independence.
Ann's right that Clinton was just using these bloggers after enjoying how they raged in favor of censorship on his behalf. They can do as they like, but some of us want the blogosphere to remain full of individualistic voices. There's a lot of deeply partisan bloggers on both sides that I think are a lot smarter than I am (I don't start a blog because I don't think it would be good enough to be worth the bother), but it's frustrating that they let themselves be owned by a "team."
"If "objectifying" women really is a serious concern -- and I doubt very much that you really think it is -- why aren't you all distressed about Jessica's blog? It openly seeks attention through the objectification of women."
Except, of course, that by any rational, non-misogynist definition it does no such thing. If we accept your silly definition that a picture of a woman in a T-Shirt represents "objectification," then Dr. Helen--who you cite as a feminist authority, which given your apparent bizzaro world criteria that feminists should be lickspittles for presidents who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, reinstitute abortion gag orders, appoint sexist lunactics who will obstruct the availability of contraception, sign federal abortion legislation, etc., I guess she is--is equally guilty of this "objectification." As soon as you put up a series of posts criticizing her, you at least will be consistent, although your argumeht would still be wrong.
Charles Giacometti said..."Actually, Professor Althouse, my musing was designed to make you think twice about how unprofessional your behavior is..."
I am a blogger here. Your desire to confine me to your professor image is repressive and offensive. You are either trying to intimidate me or you are pathetically narrow-minded or you don't understand what blogging is or don't care about free speech. The attitude you're taking is a longstanding joke on this blog. Figure it out or expect to be criticized harshly here. This is not the law school classroom or a law journal. This is a blog. If you don't like my writing, read something else. But that's not what you are doing. You are despicably attempting to intimidate me about my job. If I were a person with insecure employment, it actually would be intimidating. But as it is, I'm in a position to call you on your repressive loutishness, which I'm happy to do for the sake of all the good bloggers who actually do have to worry about their livelihood. And shame on you.
Boob-blogging is bad.
But on the whole I prefer it to fat hairy crazy lesbian feminist bitch blogging.
B) pre-emptively destroying a dictatorship that sought to anonymoulsy hand off WMDs to terrorists for suicide attacks against the West.
Uh-huh.
"[Saddam's government] did not have a relationship, harbor, or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates." - CIA, Oct 2005.
"[Saddam's government] did not have a relationship, harbor, or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates." - CIA, Oct 2005.
You still put a lot of stock in the conclusions of the CIA, do ya?
Scott Lemieux said..."If "objectifying" women really is a serious concern -- and I doubt very much that you really think it is -- why aren't you all distressed about Jessica's blog? It openly seeks attention through the objectification of women." Except, of course, that by any rational, non-misogynist definition it does no such thing. If we accept your silly definition..."
Scott, you are not reading my posts very well. (And what you've written about me on your blog is abysmal.) "Objectification" isn't my word. It's the bogus complaint others have brought up. My point is simply that Jessica's blog is distinguished by many pictures of breasts and is clearly trying to win and keep readers by using breasts. (Do you seriously deny that?) She has claimed that territory for herself.
I called her on her laughable hypocrisy. "Hypocrisy" is my word. "Breast-blogging" is also my word, which you called "creepy" on your blog. It is a humorous way of saying that Jessica has chosen to feature a lot of closeups and outlines of breasts. She titillates for traffic. As such, it's disingenuous to say that I've "objectified" her.
If I wanted to be a big women's studies type of feminist and lambaste people for objectifying women, I would trash her blog. But I'm not doing that. She's welcome to design the blog she wants. But what she can't do is have her cake and eat it too.
And you have a long way to go to convince me that your problem with me is anything other than political commitment to the liberal side. I have a longstanding commitment to feminism, and I don't need a political hack telling me off about it, which is what you seem to be. Feminism is not Democratic party politics, and any attempt to push me back on this point will be strongly countered.
Wow, well, I hit a nerve. You claim to not be intimidated, but clearly you are. Funny thing, I was not attempting to intimidate you, but you took it that way. Indeed, I was merely trying to prompt you to consider the appropriateness of your behavior, but your guilty, reflexive reaction tells me that somewhere, underneath your petty exterior, you know that your behaviour is incorrect.
Oh, and I love how you suddenly play the victim (accusing me of being "repressive") while almost in the same breath maintaining your position as public scold ("shame on you!"). I especially love that bit of projection, as you are the one who is clearly feeling the shame, finally. And what a diversion too! Right after I tell you about my firm conviction against impinging academic freedom, and pointing out the guilt of your party in this regard, you accuse me of it out of the blue. Nice smokescreen, along with your sudden allegiance to all other bloggers who don't have the rockhard psyche and tenure you enjoy. Funny thing, but alone among the bloggers out there, I am only calling you shallow and petty.
You then add the canard about me not understanding blogging. Please. I read hundreds of them. There is nothing to understand. You are shrill, petty, and ill-informed. You would be in any forum, and you certainly are in a blog.
Then you tell me, "expect to be criticized harshly here." To put my answer in the 7th grade venacular you rely on so heavily, I am shaking in my boots. As if you or any of your sychophants could say anything that would change my thinking or intimidate me.
Nice try, Professor. Wrong on all counts, but thank you for the continuing insight into your bizarre psyche. Along with the source of this thread--a young woman's looks--it speaks volumes.
Charles Giacometti, if you are going to try to get Ann fired you should come forth and identify who you really are. It's called courage. ("Courage", though probably not well understood in the Massachusetts circles you move in, is an old Greek virtue. I suggest you do some serious reading and reflect on its meaning.)
If you do not come forth and identify yourself, you are a coward and a Hollow Man to boot.
AlaskaJack, take a class in reading comprehension and get back to me.
Charles Giacometti said...
Wow, well, I hit a nerve. You claim to not be intimidated, but clearly you are. Funny thing, I was not attempting to intimidate you, but you took it that way.
Amazing Charlie... What a fast backtrack from a blatant threat to report a blogger to her Bosses, her peers and the state legislature (but only the liberal ones?). Let's review what you said when you didn't try to intimidate:
Charles Giacometti said...
I spent some time today musing about a letter I would write to Professor Althouse's deans at UW asking them if they like one of their tenured professors writing the following comment publicly:...
This is such a wonderful contribution to the public debate, isn't it? It is so learned, scholarly, tempered. If I were the dean, this is exactly how I would want my faculty members to spend their time. And it is exactly how I would want my faculty members to demonstrate how subjects such as feminism and politics should be debated...
I don't know, maybe I still will. Or maybe I'll do an email broadcast to her faculty colleagues and some select (and liberal) members of the Wisconsin legislature.
really classy. Great progressive defense of speech argument here.
Awesome, DrillSgt. You know how to cut and paste! Too bad you left out the key, last line. "On second thought, no. I'm going to go read a good blog instead."
For your next trick, can you roll over and beg?
I find AlaskaJack's and Drill's lack of reading comprehension hilarious, especially since the Professor uses that over and over again when commenters skewer her and she is too lazy to answer.
Oh, and Professor, is this where I learn about your warning, "or expect to be criticized harshly here"?
Lame, hopelessly, impossibly lame.
Charles is utterly contemptible. I called him on it, and he's trying to act like he didn't do it. His extra-long comments are the sound of him protesting too much. What a sniveling little tattletale. What a creep! Shame on you.
Whetstone said:
"You know, it would be great if these guys had the ability to sit back like you and be "intellectually" "honest," but they're trying to undo what they see as a lot of damage to this country. Maybe they're gonna get burned by Billary, it's possible. But they're in the arena,"
Is that the same arena with Katie Couric? And the clock is still ticking on another thing...I believe every one of those bloggers has said they can't wait to report about their fantastic lunch and meeting with Clinton. Well, I predict almost none will cause there ain't no wisdom to be had from Clinton. Just look and see if you can find any his book...it should have been called "A Snow Job From Hope".
Charlie, you're an ugly, venomous toad. Go tattle to Mommy and Daddy about the big, bad lady who hurt your feelings. Figures that you're from Massachusetts, a state that had its sense of humor aborted, using government funds, in the third trimester.
Charles Giacometti, you're a fool, and you should go back to where you came from - no doubt full of assholes like yourself. You're not going over well here, however many points you're laughably imagining you're scoring.
Ann went a little overboard and Jessica's blog's attempt at irony in its layout is a bit ill-conceived.
Can't we just leave it at that? More pictures of beautiful Madison, please!
Charlie,
when you start sending out emails to report Professor Althouse for conduct unbecoming a tenured professor at UW, don't forget those leaders at UW like Kevin Barnett and Provost Patrick Farrell. I'm sure they'd like to join the lynching, or since it's a female, perhaps the imagery of a nice stake burning would be better.
LOL
Awesome, DrillSgt. You know how to cut and paste! Too bad you left out the key, last line. "On second thought, no. I'm going to go read a good blog instead."
Whoa, I can cut and paste your stupid shit as well. Your second thought doesn't explain away your musing of writing letters to the dean or to politicians. It is a sneaky passive aggressive way, or should I say cowardly way, of threatening someone.
How would you take it if someone told another person: I am having these thoughts of beating the crap out of you, doing things to you that are illegal in Georgia and the more I think about it, I am considering cutting your throat. Gee, maybe I will just have a sandwich instead.
If someone said that to me, I sure as shit would consider it a threat
Charles Giacometti asks,
"For your next trick, can you roll over and beg?"
It must take a lot of mental energy and sheer malicious nastiness to produce this sort of thing.
Charles, please don't go on about Massachusetts in your thuggish posts. You'll give the Bay State such a bad name. And it would be undeserved, because extrapolating from the evidence of your posts, I'm sure your personality makes you just as much an outcast there as you are here.
Charles:
Just go away you silly liberal moonbat, or I shall taunt you again.
Charles Giacometti has no sense of humor. Prof. A. is indeed pursued by boobs.
Ann, thanks for taking the time to respond. My nickname actually refers to my poor typing spelling and lack of proof reeding. I'm usually quicker on the uptake. There's just so much going on with this one it seemed easier to ask than try and read it all.
So, to summarize again:
1 You think Clinton is a tool that doesn't respect women.
2 You made fun of feminists that don't think that.
3 They figure that makes you a horrible person that needs to be thrown out of the sisterhood.
4 The woman with the rack is sort of humorless and a bit of an attention whore.
Do i get any credit for the rewrite?
Anyone else think Charles Giacometti is attempting to start a fight because he thinks it will lead to people reading his blog?
How fitting that a weekend of discussing boobs ends with the discovery of yet another one.
Drill Sgt: I think that's an inaccurate take on Farrell. The commitment to free speech here is longstanding and very strong. Ironically, Charles imagines liberals as repressive, but that isn't the case here. Not firing Barrett is part of this.
hmm
@fenrisulven, personal insults, puerile name calling, unnecessary and rather ridiculous attacks on clinton -- yes, its pretty clear to me who is unhinged around here.
@simon, yes, i do think bush's appointment of condi rice to NSA advisor and then secretary of state is laudable. as was his appointment of colin powell. we've reached a time when joe lieberman can run for VP and condi rice can be secretary of state and their religions/ethnicities rarely come up -- this is a very good thing.
ann, not that you ever respond to me, but you should really think twice before posting some of what you write. you seem like a nice person -- some of your insults to fairly polite posters are ridiculous imo (the veiled threats of charles aside).
Massachusetts? I thought Charlie was from Pennsylvania.
Exalted: I don't know which comments you're thinking of, but some things you're reading as polite may be things I'm perceiving as actually nasty. I'd need a specific example to respond, really. I have my reasons for putting things the way I do. Sometimes the poster is someone I know is writing nastily about me elsewhere. I had little patience with Scott because I saw how he wrote about me on his blog (which I noted).
I thought I knew Charles Giacometti from somewhere and it just hit me. Last weekend he attempted to flame me at Glenn Greenwald's blog with false accusations about who I am.
I bring it up because, yup, his usual hang outs are full of assholes like himself. In that thread Greenwald sycophants batted around the idea of trying to torment the blogger Patterico at his place of employment simply because Patterico objected to erroneous claims Greenwald made about him.
(The reason I commented there was because Greenwald had attempted to spread a myth about who ABC had sent DVDs of Path to 9/11 to and erroneously claimed Patterico had received one.)
Here are some of the comments from that thread:
So this Patterico is a LA attorney? I mean for real, and not just in his own mind? How would a California resident go about removing such an obvious wacko from that position?
Patterico is really an assistant district attorney in Los Angeles County. His real name is ... and he is a genuine nutcase. I don't think we serve ourselves by trying to get him fired, I like to think we are above that. There is argument out there however for causing him some grief and I have a difficult time arguing with it.
These comments aren't by Giacometti, but he was there and...birds of a feather....
LINK: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/glenngreenwald/115782550794386885/
There is entirely no reason to have made such a big deal about a woman sticking her tits out in a photo. I probably would've done it too - my personal trainer stresses good posture.
C'mon. Twisting a shift of the shoulders into a feminist issue is really, really reaching. I suppose the world is devoid of actual news these days.
Sheesh.
nedludd said...
Looking back at his early missteps (Kimba Wood? Wasn't there another AG designate prior to Reno other than Wood?)
Zoe Baird
Exalted: Fen's commenting is absolutely first rate.
(Kimba Wood? Wasn't there another AG designate prior to Reno other than Wood?)
Zoe Baird, and both nominees fell due to a like issue. There was a difference between the two cases, though: Wood paid taxes with regard to her nanny and, I believe, was determined to have not broken the law.
I think Baird had to pay fines, or something. I wouldn't the "broken law" reference to be interpreted in an overblown fashion. It's just that the two cases did have some differences but have tended to get merged, over time, in the general mind.
Sorry, Drill, I see that you got there first.
Never mind.
as for clinton "hurting feminism," honestly, just what are you talking about? did he hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?
Given what a monumentally incompetent job Albright did during her tenure, I'd have to say yes. She was a failed affirmative action hire, and perpetuated the notion that any woman in the higher offices of American government is just there as window dressing.
Anyway, the main harm Clinton did to feminism was to feminist activism; the obvious double-standard organizations like NOW used when dealing with the allegations againt Clinton cost those organizations a lot of popular support with swing voters, I suspect. Not that they had much to begin with.
The idea that appointing Albright or Reno outbalances undercutting the modern women's movement is absurd. Appointing some women is a fairly ordinary thing to do, and since they did not work out especially well, it's not that memorable in the long run.
Y'know why I'm less and less inclined to even bother listening to argument originating from more than 10 degrees left of center? Because so many of its practitioners are so vile, especially the reflexive Clinton defenders, a few of whom make appearances above. You make an offhand crack about some stupid blogger bash involving Clinton, and the defenders are on you, talking about how Clinton Attackers are unhinged and obsessed - all of a sudden it's about preserving the (no longer extant) presidency. The man could be caught walking out of a bank covered in die, carrying bags of money, with a pistol in his hand, and the defenders would be screaming, "BUT NEWT GINGRICH LEFT HIS WIFE."
In the end, I don't hate Clinton because of his domestic policies, which were half decent; or because of his foreign policies, which were half misguided, like most presidents'. Instead, I hate the bastard for the degraded place he and his 24 hour spin doctor war room pushed politics into, and where it's remained ever since. Not like it was great before, but now everything is about smearing your opponents, fighting these stupid little screaming battles about nothing, responding to argument A by screaming back off-point argument B - as if settling policy questions or life in general was a half hour on the Crossfire set and it's done by lobbing off-point insults back and forth. It's pathetic.
And yeah, Peetywhatever, I just spent 30 seconds scribbling about Clinton so I must be a deranged and obsessed conservative panty sniffer, etc. But I will note something for you reflexive Clinton Defenders: once you've lost MadisonMan, you've lost.
I mean what did the Keystone State ever do to you to deserve that level of slur?
Elected Santorum? :)
I'll note that my parents, at least, have voted against him as often as possible. But Santorum really puts the tucky into Pennsyltucky.
There is entirely no reason to have made such a big deal about a woman sticking her tits out in a photo. I probably would've done it too - my personal trainer stresses good posture.
C'mon. Twisting a shift of the shoulders into a feminist issue is really, really reaching. I suppose the world is devoid of actual news these days.
Sticking your breasts out is appropriate if you are participating in a photo shoot for Jugs magazine or are at a nightclub and are trying to attract the attention of some cheeseball in a muscle shirt. But if you are meeting one of the most powerful men in the world in a business type setting, it probably isn't the best move to point those things out and up.
Also to some of the liberals here, if you think the comments at this blog about the woman are harsh, what the hell do you think Hillary's comments were after she looked at that picture?
Back when I was a kid, I was watching Phil Donahue and he had a feminist male anti-porn crusader and one of his points was that these male magazines place women in ridiculous, unnatural positions (such as the arched back) all for the gratification of men. Part of this guy's arsenal was to get men to lounge around as if they were posing for Playboy to see if it was demeaning.
Ann, all you've proven with these dumbass posts is that you're just a jealous old bitch with wet-sand-in-a-sock titties.
Sorry, buy you just come off like a bitter old hag with shitty looking breasts of her own.
Whatever.
All in all, I'd have to say that this is a tempest in a C cup.
It did make for some entertaining reading over the weekend, though.
It seems that there are feminists and then there are "Deminists." The latter are cheap partisan simulations of the former.
If you are a deminist, you see nothing wrong with using sexist, objectifying language against actual feminists who don't toe the party line.
Mr. or Ms. "Hmmm..." is clearly a deminist.
And Al Maviva, yeah, the lefties tend to be impolite and unhinged. It's that Bush Derangement Syndrome thing. Fortunately for the ones who've been jihadding on this topic, the Muslims have behaved worse over the weekend and kept the spotlight off of them. I think the lefties owe the Muslims a big "thank you" for burning churches, shooting a nun and making them look comparatively rational.
DaveL -- I would think a deminist would only half-state their points of view, but hmmmm stated her point of view, then he restated it. As if saying it twice would make it any more factual.
peetyport said:
Former President Clinton is still loved throughout the world and an influential diplomat. It is even possible to argue the most influential and He want to help his wife.
No, no...Clapton is God, not Clinton.
Al Maviva said...
Al, you made good points, let me sum it up. Clinton's term was all about driving his poll numbers up, and up and up. thinking that if people loved him that somehow that carried over and became "legacy" after he left office. Other great presidents understand that politcal capital is only valuable if you spend it to accomplish things. Clinton refused to spend a dime of capital to fix social security for example.
I'm very suspicious about this. Has anyone ever seen Jessica and Karl Rove in the same room?
I missed something -- what did Harlan Ellison do? Damn, I thought I was staying on top of current events!
I mean what did the Keystone State ever do to you to deserve that level of slur?
Elected Santorum? :)
Props to MM, I laughed out load at this one!
From reading all the comments here, I have come to one conclusion:
If you are a Democrat official who backs abortion, you are allowed to commit perjury and rape. NOW and every other feminist will disparage your accuser (see Prof. Althouse), denigrate (Jones and Willey) or destroy (Jones). So every single Democrat Presidential candidate can be a rapist and the Democrats and the femisists will say nothing. Pandora's box unleashed.
as for clinton "hurting feminism," honestly, just what are you talking about? did he hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?
Actually, as it turns out, yes.. and no. Her foreign policy of endless mediation and conciliation is what got us where we are.
That the same is considered a 'feminine trait' sets back real feminism; tho nowhere near as much as feminists stands on issues where THEIR patrons might deserve criticism.
As for the subject of the tempest that means nothing... it only shows up Libs for what they are.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with how she's dressed. But it DOES appear that she is either proud of being photoed with Bill or proud of her figure .. or both.
Thus it's moot.... when you're proud, you strike a pose.
Ann:
Just two questions, really...
1: Like or dislike Clinton, he is an influential man with undoutedly some interestin non-sex related tales about politics and being president. Many people will accept invitations from people they do not actually like or respect in the pursuit of knowledge or merely curiosity...is that wrong?
2; Jessica is dressed like every other women her age dresses. There really is nothing vulgar about her attire. And as females (and feminists), well, a majority of them have breasts...I never really did understand how there could be nothing so unfeminist as a set of breasts, as they are part of the female body...so why is their mere presense such a blow to feminism?
Perhaps stuff like this is why the fabulous Jessica was invited to the soiree and Ms. Althouse was not.
We all know why Jessie was invited, she is a liberal blogger who the Clintonistas knew would swoon at the change to chat up the Big Dog. The nutroots have been harshing on the Clintons, Bill and Hill for a variety of sins (support of Iraq, 10th Ann. of Welfare reform, Bill chuming up with GHW Bush and "Rape Gurney Joe", Hillary's flag burning and religious overtures, just to mention a few)
Bill gave these people a little face time and Clinton charm and they fell in line with the DLC talking point that Clinton is the man.
I'm not an "ist" of any kind. And if I stated it twice, too fucking bad for you.
I'll say it again: This nonsense just makes the author of this blog look like an old, ugly, fat, jealous hag who has really ugly tits that no one wants to see ever.
She's ugly. Jessica isn't. She's old. Jessica isn't. She has saggy, droppy, nasty titties. Jessica doesn't.
That's all that this is, was or ever will be about.
Whether Jessica deliberately presented herself sexually at the lunch may be open to question
You really are despicable.
Hmm says,
"This nonsense just makes the author of this blog look like an old, ugly, fat, jealous hag."
The reality-based community proves once again what they're actually based on. Try putting away the bong.
c.g. says,
"What about all of the gay bloggers that support Bush?"
Unlike Andrew Sullivan, some of us may think there's a little more at stake than gay marriage -- for example, avoiding execution under sharia.
What about all of the gay bloggers that support Bush? Is that not the EXACT same predicament? Why don't you take them to task? You won't.
I have never understood this argument, which I'll paraphrase thusly: You think A is bad because of B, but C is bad because of D and you've never mentioned it, therefore you're wrong about A.
What?
(Are there really gay bloggers who like Bush?)
hmmm: Either you're a plant or you've just presented one of the clearest examples of resorting to using sexism to make your argument. Congratulations for demonstrating your utter lack of principle with such clarity.
Renegade Evolution: "1: Like or dislike Clinton, he is an influential man with undoutedly some interestin non-sex related tales about politics and being president. Many people will accept invitations from people they do not actually like or respect in the pursuit of knowledge or merely curiosity...is that wrong?"
no
"2; Jessica is dressed like every other women her age dresses. There really is nothing vulgar about her attire. And as females (and feminists), well, a majority of them have breasts...I never really did understand how there could be nothing so unfeminist as a set of breasts, as they are part of the female body...so why is their mere presense such a blow to feminism?"
Your questions assume assumptions that don't connect to anything I've written or said. Why not try reading/listening to me instead of just picking up talking points from my critics. They are lying about me. So I have two questions for you?
1. Do you care if they lie about what I've written to make politically motivated attacks on me?
2. Do you feel bad about ignorantly absorbing those falsehoods and throwing them at me and if not, why not?
I have no principles.
And you still have nasty, ugly, old, lonely titties, all droopy and has-been and pointing south, and you're ugly and fat.
You picked on someone younger, prettier and more sexually desirable than you because of her looks, too, which makes you pretty fucking stupid.
You're just an old, ugly, repulsive, jealous woman who can't stand the fact that someone else is prettier than she is.
End of story.
C. G.: If you want to hear about how they're different (or not), then start blogging about it.
hmmm: I get it. You're an ageist too. Criticizing someone for hypocrisy in the public sphere isn't "picking on" them. In fact, she showed up and started talking about herself. Before that, I hadn't even mentioned her. You're quite dishonest, on top of being utterly unprincipled. I'm sure the Clintons love having a guy like you on their side.
Ann:
1. Do you care if they lie about what I've written to make politically motivated attacks on me?
I do not like to see anyone lied about. However, I do not like to see assumptions made about people without actual knowledge, and it seems a great many people through out this entire thread have attributed a great many motives and 'dodgy actions" towards one another without factual knowledge, your supporter and critics alike.
2. Do you feel bad about ignorantly absorbing those falsehoods and throwing them at me and if not, why not?
I threw nothing at you. In fact, I did not attack you in any way, so no need to get so defensive. I asked you two simple questions. You have wondered repeatedly why feminists would meet with Clinton, I put forth a reason they might and asked you if you had a problem with a meeting under those conditions. That is a question, not an attack. I also asked, since such a big deal has been made about them, by you and others, why is it that something that is a part of the female body (ie, breasts) can be deemed as so unfeminist? Also, not an attack, a question. Apparently you do not want to answer that question, so you accuse me of attacking you (which I have not)and not caring about anything you've written (also untrue, for you did express an interest as to why a feminist would go to a lunch with Bill Clinton and an interest in Jessica's breasts). If you do not want to or have an answer as to why breasts are unfeminist, fine, just say so, but no need to take my rather straight forward questions as an attack. I have not insulted or slandered you at all, I merely asked two questions.
You would do well to let Beavis and Butthead guest-blog for a while.
Heh. 'Rack.' Heh.
Um, Ann, you old, ugly, saggy-tittied bat, pointing out hypocrisy in the public square is fine, if you enjoy doing that sort of thing.
Picking on a younger, prettier, firmer girl for being young, pretty and firm is not pointing out hypocrisy. It's being a jealous old twat, is all.
You brought up her breasts, you dumbass. Next time, remember that, no matter what your politics, principles, or whatever, old, ugly, saggy women who pick on young, pretty, sexy women always look like jealous old crones.
Next time, leave someone else's looks and body out of it, and they might take you seriously.
In the end, all this was ever about was pure high-school prom jealousy on your part.
Perhaps stuff like this is why the fabulous Jessica was invited to the soiree and Ms. Althouse was not.
If you're a serious feminist, you should take a non-invite to lunch with Clinton as a compliment.
Absolutely nothing in recent memory has demonstrated more clearly just how UNSERIOUS are the folks on the left.
"A man who was a man, and not some emotionally insecure malignant narcissist"
Clearly the best, wisest, and most charitable among us would rather serve humankind in ways other than public office. If we now eliminate the emotionally insecure malignant narcissists from politics, who's left?
c.g., you are mistaking a blog full of opinion with a news source. Nowhere is it stated that some other blogger has to discuss what you find interesting or relevant.
Please stop complaining.
Hmmm wrote:
I have no principles.
How about a sense of irony?
Oh, I have a well-developed sense of irony, which is why I'm highly amused by the assumptions being made about me, my political leanings, and whether or not I'm a feminist...
I was specifically asking that with reference to the "I have no principles" statement.
I make no assumptions based on anything other than that.
... and your apparent obsession with age as it may or may not relate to breasts.
Leads me to wonder about your experience with breasts OR age.
I gotta say something to people on both (all) sides of this, which will meaning nothing, but that's OK.
If I never hear the word "rack" used again with regard to breasts after this weekend, it will be way too soon.
I wish you'd all knock it the fuck off.
There, now I've finally gotten that little beef off my chest. (And yes, I'm injecting humor--by, by God, you'd better believe I mean it bitingly.)
Sheesh, both (all) sides. How meatheaded can you get?
Former President Clinton is still loved throughout the world and an influential diplomat. It is even possible to argue the most influential
The most influential diplomat in the world is, inarguably, Condi Rice, who represents the most powerful nation on Earth.
Bill Clinton isn't a diplomat at all, let alone an influential one. He represents only himself, and has no negotiating power beyond the promise or threat to speak for or against a position. That is, indeed, one of the reasons he's so widely-liked -- it is always easier to like a person who poses no threat to anyone.
So there's George C. Marshall, right, pushing for an earlier landing in Europe, and Professor Lindemann had to explain the British resistance to such: "It's no good—you are arguing against the casualties of the Somme."
Jessica might have just laughed over the fact that she has a superficial resemblance to Lewinsky, and that her close-fitting silk top was in front of a man impeached for lying about diddling an intern, but that would require that she disapprove of said diddling or accepted that others did not approve of said diddling. Don't hold your breath. You are fighting the ghosts of the Somme&mdashI mean, the 1994 and 2000 elections.
Speaking of ghosts: "It's an Anne Taylor silk top!" they all exclaimed later in the comments. Is brand name dropping a true substitute for thought and argument? Who gives a damn that the top was made by Anne Taylor?
"Yes, Your Honour, I did drop my trousers and pants in front of a group of schoolgirls, but it's a Savile Row business suit."
"Oh. Not guilty, then; off you go."
Ann Althouse makes a crack about the woman with the rack
Liar. Until said woman showed up and began making an ass out of herself, Ann never said a thing, never mentioned the woman in front of WJC, nor even said she was posting the picture because of the female(s) in it. The Blewinsky scandal is famous enough that people worked it out for themselves. Anyone complaining about Ann targeting anyone for their looks is slandering Ann Althouse.
Jessica is basically an unimportant bit player; she's cute, but an Internet picture of her would have no importance beyond her looks or her blog. No, Clinton set this one up himself, years ago, and now we all get to deal with the fallout.
First
Goesh said...
Who is the Intern directly in front of him with the black hair?
then
Pogo said...
Monica has a blog?
Who knew?
Does she let Linda Tripp leave comments, or is she banned?
Oh, I should really let the poor man alone. But hasn't he got any sense at all, after all that?
__________________
The it went kablooey. I stayed out of it after that, hoping in fact to read some substantive defense of the continued feminist embrace of Bill Clinton despite his track record of blatant sexual harassment. It was two doofuses -not Althouse- who made the intern jokes (one doofus being me).
There was a mention of realpolitik, but not discussed. There was a mention of but Bush is worse, as if that actually meant something. But little else of merit.
Mostly there was the left doing what remains when ideas are replaced by ideology: spin, trash, blame, thrash wildly, throw mud, act offended, be offesnive, threaten, mock, and decry you, a perfesser.
If you took Ann's comments and made a single piece of it,it would make sense, and read as a mild chiding of the left, with some sound disdain for the dimmer bulbs as well. Pretty much what I would think a tough-but-fair classroom might hope to be.
But geez. The left seems to have become entirely populated by illogicians, and masters of the craft to boot. Clintons womanizing and then 9/11 made me realize that our best hopes were not with the New Left. And it sems to have devoled from there.
"And it seems to have devolved from there."
Er, rather.
Pogo said...
Monica has a blog?
Who knew?...
__________________
The it went kablooey.
don't forget the old sarge asking cluelessly as usual, what the joke was about "random"
If Jessica were blatantly posturing in a pornographic manner in order to seduce poor old Bill Clinton (with his groggy heart and all...) for real, and she got called on it, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. I'd still warn older, less attractive women not to harp on the actual body stuff because it's a no-win for them. Sorry, but that's the way things are, and that ain't a-goin' to change. The older woman will always come off as jealous and bitter.
The imagery Jessica has on her blog ain't my cup of tea, but I get it, in all of it's sophomoric glory.
That someone is a self-avowed feminist does not preclude them from either supporting a political person who has some sexual issues in his past, or even just hangin' out for a photo-op with them.
Was Bill a bit piggy in the past? Yep. Do I think he's a worthless piece of shit because of his past? Nope.
No one is perfect, and none of us would look all that great were the lens of public scrutiny to be focused on us and our past indiscretions spun to give the worst effect.
It was a posed photo-op picture and she was an intern. She's cute and has a nice figure. She got posed in an awkward spot. Did the photographer maybe put the cutest girl in front? Probably. But how is that her fault?
I think to even take this up as any kind of serious issue is so beyond stupid, I don't know where to begin. And I think that the focus on the outfit and the position was a really dumbass path to go down.
Unless you just won Playmate-of-the-Year, you don't rag on other chicks because of some assumed overt sexuality. You can't win that one. So lay off that angle.
a political person who has some sexual issues in his past
a bit piggy
No one is perfect
Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and Juanita Broaderick might take issue with such a breezy summary of Bill's behavior toward them.
I don't like it when anyone minimizes what Clinton did, out of political partisanship or sheer ignorance. Not sure why you're doing it.
But anyone who apologizes and/or supports Clinton and tries to take credit for being a "Feminist" at the same time.... forget it, they're asking for ridicule.
Here's what I don't get.
When it was clear that Clinton had lied precisely to scuttle Paula Jones's case against him, why didn't feminists come out and say something like:
"We have always been supporters of President Clinton's avocacy and policies for American women. However, in light of his repreated mistreatment of women working under him and his dishonesty in a very serious case of sexual harassment against him, we can no longer support him as a representative of feminist ideals and a positive force for the advancement of women.
As feminists we must insist on justice for all women, even if they happen to accuse a political ally of feminist causes."
Instead we get this blatanly politically motivated, ongoing defense of a serial sexual harasser and possible rapist. Sad.
Hands down the funniest thing I've read in a while. Mushroom Cloud couldn't even get invited to Lebanon.
Remind me again how Bill Clinton resolved the latest Israel-Lebannon conflict? He resolved the *last* one, of course... by getting Israel to pull out of Lebannon and leave Hezbollah in control of it, guaranteeing that the war would resume a few years later. Brilliant diplomacy, that.
She really should stick to the piano, as she has zero credibility
She has zero credibility among the stupid. Intelligent people realize that she speaks for the United States of America, whose support is necessary for the success of any international military, economic, or environmental agreement.
and virtually nothing on her resume
And Clinton does? Aside from getting Israel to make concessions in exchange for nothing, giving food and oil to North Korea in exchange for nothing, signing a Kyoto treaty he couldn't get ratified, and failing to get the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, what were the big lasting accomplishments of world-class diplomat Bill Clinton? Pushing Germany to recognize Scientology? :)
Face it, Clinton's completely impotent as a political figure. He's not even the most influential person in his own political party -- let alone in international politics.
Instead we get this blatanly politically motivated, ongoing defense of a serial sexual harasser and possible rapist. Sad.
The most amusing thing about the whole fiasco, of course, is that it is a feminist shibboleth that false accusations of rape are either nonexistant, or so rare as to be not worth worrying about. If Clinton wasn't a powerful Democrat, feminist groups wouldn't be taking the "he said, she said" position -- they'd be treating it as a foregone conclusion that Clinton was a rapist.
The old catchphrase used to be "women don't lie about rape". The new one is "women don't lie about being raped by Republicans".
Sarge:
Not forgotten. Your comment wasn't of the doofus type, but subtle. Mine was crass.
Jody,
You obviously disagree with me, but I am posting my opinion sincerely and in good faith.
Have the decency to respond seriously, don't just throw out some insult.
I should add, Jody, that not one feminist defender of Jessica has addressed the issue of Clinton's behavior in any sort of meaningful way. It's all offhand, "no big deal" stuff.
Do you all agree with Clinton's operatives that his accusers are "trailer trash"? Do you think they are scorned women? Simply lying for attention?
Whatever it is, have the nerve to admit it.
The hilarity in all of this is that all Ann did was post the image and say "Let's Randomly Arrange…", which I took to mean the fact that all the women were clustered around Clinton, which is funny, I don't care who you are or what your politics are. The snowballing has turned into a wonderful dichotomy of the virtues and vices of blogs. Virtues being discussing issues within issues; vices being people being always being so fucking fanatical.
This whole boobpla is so preposterous, I mean really people, imagine trying to explain being worked up over this to a clueless stranger—you be laughed at. The meat of these comments are:
Joke
Rage
Joke
Rage-Rebuttal
Reasoned response
Off subject rant
unknowingly perpetuating stereotypes
Joke
etc.
Hilarious, pointless and looney as hell.
corrupt governor from a corrupt backwater state
I don't myself find this particularly useful wherever applied, but in the futile interest of getting people to step back, step back, step back--there!--and consider where and how different people can view things differently:
Can anyone see how different people are able to see that this could easily be applied to more than one target and for more than one point of view?
That, in fact, it has?
marley said...
I would happy with one example of her even being qualified for the position.
You asked:
Condoleeza Rice:
She became National Security Advisor to the Bush presidency in 2001. Rice received a BA in political science from the University of Denver at age 19, followed by an MA in political science from the University of Notre Dame in 1975, and a PhD from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. An expert on Russia and Eastern Europe, she began teaching political science at Stanford University in 1981. From 1989 to 1991 she advised the George H. W. Bush administration on foreign policy and military issues, including the unification of Germany and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Rice later returned to Stanford, and was named provost, the university's budget and academic official, in 1993. In 1999 she took a leave of absence to advise the George W. Bush campaign. Author of several books on foreign policy, Rice is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and holds honorary doctorates from Morehouse College, the University of Alabama, and the University of Notre Dame.
And while we are at it:
General Colin Powell:
Colin Powell became the first African-American Secretary of State in U.S. history when he took office in 2001. Powell was a career soldier who fought in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War and rose through the ranks to the rank of general, then became national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan. Powell became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George Bush the elder, directing U.S. forces during the Gulf War. Powell retired in 1993 and published his autobiography, My American Journey, in 1995. After years on the lecture circuit, he was chosen by George W. Bush to be Secretary of State in 2001. Powell was often perceived to be a moderate among more conservative voices in the administration. He submitted his resignation to Bush in November of 2004, shortly after Bush won election to a second term. He was succeeded as Secretary of State by Condoleezza Rice, the first African-American woman to hold the job.
And Madeleine Albright:
Born to a member of the Czech diplomatic corps, Madeleine Albright lived in Belgrade, London and Prague before her family settled in Colorado. She got a political science degree from Wellesley in 1959 and later earned a doctorate in public law and government from Columbia. In 1978 she joined the staff of the National Security Council and began establishing herself as an expert in foreign affairs. President Bill Clinton named her the U.S. delegate to the United Nations and then, in late 1996, Secretary of State. She was the first woman ever to hold that post.
All from the same source:
http://www.infoplease.com/index.html
Never heard of the site before but I figured whitehouse.gov wouldn't be believed by someone.
Pogo said...
Sarge:
Not forgotten. Your comment wasn't of the doofus type, but subtle. Mine was crass.
LOL, When the history books are written, I don't want my small part of this Boob eruption to be lost.
While I'm talking to the official chronicler, I don;t want it to be lost that MadisonMan has demonstrated that though left, he is rational. :)
Tell me how a corrupt governor from a corrupt backwater state is competent to be president.
"Corrupt governor" = incompetent, okay. "From a corrupt backwater state" = incompetent? I think not. And that's without even addressing the obnoxious state stereotype.
Careful. Rather broad brush you're painting with there.
derve,
Please justify the ability to excuse Clinton's behavior while claiming to have feminist values. I don't think that's possible, but have at it. Prove me wrong.
""I would happy with one example of her even being qualified for the position.
You asked:
"Condoleeza Rice:
She became National Security Advisor to the Bush presidency in 2001. Rice received a BA in political science from the University of Denver at age 19, followed by an MA in political science from the University of Notre Dame in 1975, and a PhD from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. An expert on Russia and Eastern Europe, she began teaching political science at Stanford University in 1981. From 1989 to 1991 she advised the George H. W. Bush administration on foreign policy and military issues, including the unification of Germany and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Rice later returned to Stanford, and was named provost, the university's budget and academic official, in 1993. In 1999 she took a leave of absence to advise the George W. Bush campaign. Author of several books on foreign policy, Rice is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and holds honorary doctorates from Morehouse College, the University of Alabama, and the University of Notre Dame.""
I don't see that any of these qualification have enhanced her ability to create disasters all over the planet!
~Skunk
give me one accomplishment from Condi Rice. Just one
Getting Israel to agree to stop attacking Hezbollah in south Lebannon -- something in our (short-term) interests, but certainly not in Israel's.
When incompetance of current administration officials is brought up, blame Clinton.
Try to be a little less stupid. My post didn't blame Clinton for any of this administration's mistakes -- only for mistakes made during the 90s when, if you'll please recall, Bush was not the President.
Derve wrote:
Sure it's helpful to have folks like you with the big brushes or even rolling the wall to start. But eventually you're going need those smaller brushes to play the corners, come at different angles, and finish the finer details.
See, knoxgirl, that's the problem... a lack of nuance.
We should pay more attention to those shades of grey when it comes to the testimony of those half-dozen or so women about the Big Dog.
Us poor fly-over hicks just can't grasp the intricate details involved with feminist support for Bill. They're doing us a favor by not actually explaining it.
There's no contradiction here. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Now say you're sorry, and back away slowly from your betters, you churlish drone.
I swear, they'll let just any ignorant red-stater onto the Internet, won't they?
Yeah, he swaggers all over the place then doesn't have the stuff to answer a serious question. Best he can do is essentially a riff on
"Depends on what the definition of is is."
Clinton would be proud!
Not one person has yet answered the question in anything but an offhand manner or an insult.
" her blog uses sexuality for promotional purposes."---Althouse
Yes, but it's a certain kind of sexuality.
I've looked at her Flickr photos....hers is a a kind of wholesome--
nice-Jewish-girl-ethnic-Brunette-who-just-happens-to-have-breasts...
---sort of a look.
She has pictures of her cherub father interspliced between semi-wholesome, yet all-knowing, shots of her emphasizing breasts.
Women know how NOT to expose body parts. I don't care if you are a 44 DD, there's a certain style of dressing, and body language, whereby you can turn it completely off.
Jessica hides behind this veil of the good-Jewish-wholesome-Italian-Ethnic-brunette facade, which probably makes her unassailable on the surface.
Yet, it's so obvious what she's intentionally contriving to put out there.
It's that wholesome/semi-ethnic look....you can't criticize her, she's got her father up there, for God's sake.
Very clever.
For all but those who can see through the act.
Peace, Maxine
I'm scratching my head a bit. I read literally over *900* comments on this mess, and I was sure that at some point in this, someone would explain the simple premise.
Surely, I thought, someone out there who claimed to simultaneously hold Clinton in high esteem and embrace feminist ideals would explain why there's not a gaping dichotomy there... explain how Clinton doesn't personify the very misogynistic attitudes that the feminist movement sought to rightfully bring to public scorn and shame.
I couldn't find it (the explanation)... and it wasn't like I didn't try to find it.
Is there anyone out there who can explain it clearly and concisely without resorting to some kind of tu quoque diversion? An honest explanation of why it makes sense?
I consider myself an equity feminist. I can't just dismiss Clinton's serially egregious behavior towards women as something that's acceptable. The man is scum, IMO.
For someone to make feminism a major part of their self-identification, and still find it proper to cozy up to Clinton like that... it just doesn't make sense to me.
When did cognitive dissonance become a lifestyle, anyway?
Okay. I have to ask. "Wholesome, semi-ethnic look?" What on earth can this mean? As opposed to...what? The NON-wholesome look? which is...? more "ethnic?" Less ethnic? Some other KIND of semi-ethnic? Help me out, here.
anyway, very sinister of her, to pretend she's wholesome. of course she simply COULDN'T just be who she says she is: a feminist blogger who actually does quite a lot of work and who is rather down about all this gleeful shredding of her character. which she did NOTHING to deserve.
you want to exhume the creaky bones of Clinton's dreary scandal, six YEARS after he left office? just bloody do it, then; it's not like you could bore the rest of us any -more-; anyway you hardly need to fixate on some random woman's breasts to do that, do you? I mean, if you're so concerned about -his- BEHAVIOR, and all?
and as to her being unassailable, well, gee, apparently not. Yay you. I'm sure she'll be properly shamed, and...what is it, now? take down her blog? take down all the naughty scandalous language and her sarcastic mudflaps AND her own pictures? put big black X's over anyone with the audacity to have breasts in the picture? cover her head with sackcloth and ashes? write to Ann for advice on how to be a better feminist?? or just, what, next time she gets an invite to a luncheon with the ex-President, turn up her nose and say, "my feminist principles cannot allow it, SIR."
which is exactly what you, Ann, would've done, had you been invited yourself, riiiiight?
even though you voted for him twice, I believe you said?
well. good to meet someone with uh character I always say. yes indeedy.
>Surely, I thought, someone out there who claimed to simultaneously hold Clinton in high esteem and embrace feminist ideals would explain why there's not a gaping dichotomy there... explain how Clinton doesn't personify the very misogynistic attitudes that the feminist movement sought to rightfully bring to public scorn and shame.>
You know why people aren't doing this? Because it -isn't the bloody point.- There IS no principle here; this is an ass-cover. Y'all were being sniggery seventh graders over the brunette with the big tits (huh, huh, guess what THIS reminds me of, huh huh CLINTON huh huh); woman herself stops by and says, "please don't do this." What does Ann do? Not only -not- apologize or at least let the thread die a natural death, but ESCALATES. and escalates, and escalates, and escalates, and you know what? That is what bullies do. That is what HARASSERS do. Yeah, you got it. I'm not Clinton's number one fan; I don't in fact give a rat's ass about Clinton. I do give a rat's ass that a bunch of you flying monkeys are laying all your own fucked-up sexual shit on this woman who has done nothing, repeat, NOTHING to deserve this. There IS no justification for this; twist all you like.
You, Ann, are a bully.
And a coward.
And a liar.
And you could stop this any time you like.
But keep on digging if you must; hey, anything just so you can maybe splatter even MORE shit on the young woman who had the audacity to, well, have breasts, pretty much. At this rate maybe you'll get all the way to China. Where they'll -also- probably find you completely horrible; but, hey, change of scenery!
And you are completely talking out of your ass wrt her blog, as you well know.
Jessica is the serious writer here. I'm not even going to dignify your claims of "feminist" with a response. Tell it to Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin: they're GREAT feminists.
The creepy breast-fixated airhead, dear Ann, is you.
Sorry. I know reality is really painful. But really, dear, I'm only hurting you for your own good.
"Why don't you defend yourself?"
Isn't that what you said to her, -Ann-? When that was pretty much what she WAS doing--oh, except not in a self-abasing way, that's true; she didn't concede you had any right to be talking smack about her. How strange. But no; now suddenly it's about her BLOG and her FEMINISM; not you making fun of her TITS.
This isn't Project Runway, Ann. And -you- are the Weakest Link, here, unfortunately; clearly it's been an unpleasant awakening. Rotten of the young girl to not lie down and accept that role for you, I know.
"Why don't you defend yourself?"
Why should she freaking have to defend herself? Why do YOU have the right to ATTACK her? You realize that's what you said there, don't you?
"I want to hit you! I WANT TO HIT YOUUUU!!! Fight back! ooh, but not like THAT, that HURTS ME!! fight back the way I TELL YOU, that's only reasonable."
Do you have -any- idea how -completely- screwed-up you are?
And yes, that was a rhetorical question. It just amuses me to watch you decompensate as the cognitive dissonance goes to overload. See, I have a sadistic streak, too; it's just that unlike you, I do my best to reserve it for people who dish it out first. So! Wanna go for the cookie? C'mon, Ann! Let's see your next trick! I can't wait for it! How much creepier and more bizarre can you and your sycophants possibly get? seriously, it's like Kraft-Ebbing come to life up in here.
>
When did cognitive dissonance become a lifestyle, anyway?>
You tell me, dude. When'd you first start posting here?
(Since you closed the comments section at the other thread, and having finally read the whole thing, I need to post somewhere, so how about here?)
Why is it not possible to see the point about Clinton being endorsed by feminists -- indeed, to follow and enjoy those posts that refer to this question -- yet at the same time be appalled by the way you, Ann Althouse, referred to this young woman? In spite of one good question and a whole slew of disingenuous smokescreens, I can't forget this headscratchingly meanspirited comment: "Don't flatter yourself!" This (and others like it that underhandedly impugn her attractiveness -- as if you're the sole arbiter of such judgements in the first place) is the kind of spiteful and bewilderingly juvenile riposte that has brought so many bloggers and interested parties to Jessica's defence. It's bizarre and unconscionable, and yes, you really should apologise to her for your unprovoked unpleasantness. Honestly, I'm pretty gobsmacked that you can't see this.
Oh, and belledame222 hits the nail squarely on the head in the above posts. 100% on the money.
And finally, this emphasis on your detractors having little to no senmse of humour is another classic bully move: "ha, couldn't you tell I was just kidding?"
Come on. I dare you to apologise to this woman who in no way deserved your unkind remarks. It may be nothing to you: but equally, you may gain a reader, if that matters to you at all. Because right now I'm almost out of here, after stumbling by accident on this sorry little donnybrook at one of the unfashionable suburbs of the Internets. I dare you.
David A.: Oh, and belledame222 hits the nail squarely on the head in the above posts. 100% on the money.
Two more who avoid the question and applaud themselves for doing it. Yes, by all means congratulate yourselves.
Were I Jessica and read this thread, Althouse wouldn't be the one that I was angry at - it would be posters like the ones above.
Presumably Jessica is an adult who chooses her behavior and not the "poor widdle girl" she is being characterized as here.
Frankly, I can't speak to Jessica's pose - I spent so little time on the picture originally that I thought Clinton was the guy to the left without the tie.
However, Jessica chose her pose and her attendance at the event presumably. If I were Jessica and read criticism of my actions on this board, my reaction would be a laugh and, perhaps, a "what a bitch" and moved on within seconds. If I later checked back on the thread and found THIS type of defense in my behalf, I wouldn't have been happy, however. I am not a "poor widdle girl".
Whatever she put on her blog is her business just as what Althouse puts on her blog is her business. People have been defending her blog's contents for its "irony". Fine - but don't whine if some people just don't "get" your "irony". That's the risk that you chose to take when you put up what you posted. You (and this applies to ALL bloggers) conceded the right to have people criticize you when you put it on your blog. If you can only handle complete, 100 affirmation, you tell it to your dog because the cat doesn't care.
Is Althouse whining about the negative reaction she's getting? Maybe a little - but I think it's more of a "what a ...." reaction. What she HASN'T done is delete comments which I would think would be the reaction of someone who was truly whining.
you want to exhume the creaky bones of Clinton's dreary scandal, six YEARS after he left office
You know why people aren't doing this? Because it -isn't the bloody point.- There IS no principle here; this is an ass-cover.
So, Belledame222, are you saying that Ann has to get YOUR permission to make it HER point? ;-)
Since you apparently are unaware, it IS a point because the Clintons want to recapture the White House. Given that they ran on the "2 for 1" platform before, you'll have to forgive us for not assuming that Bill, if Hillary wins, is going to spend the 4 years playing golf and never mention affairs of state once or speak to any of the White House staff who happen to be female.
No, it's not a crime to be young and beautiful. There are laws, however, against an employer having a sexual relationship with a subordinate and rewarding and/or punishing that employee based on how that relationship played out.
Remember how Monica first started talking to whats-her-name? Monica was sent from the White House to the Pentagon and was not happy about it. Why was she sent there? The relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky was becoming too obvious and she was sent there to cool things down. Now, if you had hopes of becoming a political aide in Washington, DC, where would you rather be stationed - the White House or the Pentagon?
Then, later on, when she expressed her unhappiness, high level and very influential people were called in to conduct a job search for her. How many White House female employees (or male employees, for that matter) got that particular perk?
Yes, Monica said "yes" to arguably the most powerful man in the world. In his book, he said 'he did it because he could'.
And despite knowing better than anyone else her husband's personal demons on that score, Hillary said it was just a "vast right wing conspiracy" and never backed away from that viewpoint.
I repeat, it IS a point because the Clinton's want the White House back.
Belledame: Your head seems clouded by anger and hate... and dissonance about feminism. The breasts I wrote about were the images on Jessica's blog, which she uses to get attention to her blog. I did not begin by writing about her. She showed up in my comments to draw attention to herself, which motivated me to laugh at the way her blog looks. Since then, a horde of people have been insulting me, distorting what I said, and plainly lying as well. They've also been resorting to some of the lowest sexist and ageist hate speech. Why don't you address that?
David A. said.."And finally, this emphasis on your detractors having little to no senmse of humour is another classic bully move: "ha, couldn't you tell I was just kidding?""
Well, David, I demand an apology from you then, for that egregious distortion. I never said I was just kidding. I was mocking Jessica for her hypocrisy for running a blog that traffics in breast imagery and for showing up and posing at a Clinton event.
As to whether her blog is well-written, I've said nothing. I've never read her blog, only looked at the design of it, which I found ridiculous and made fun of. And the photograph from the lunch is laughable in that context. It just is. I'm not kidding. I could have written a less lighthearted post and really slammed her for the hypocrisy.
JodyTresidder said: "Realpolitik answers many of your questions, as does judging Clinton NOT as the scum of one part - as you do - having never "dismissed" his sexual behavior at the time as "acceptable", understanding he's paid for his priapic stupidity and so on."
Sorry Jody. I read this now 4 times and it still makes little sense. Do you mean to say that your defense of Clinton is simply "Realpolitik"? That's been said already, repeatedly. That's a non-answer, a circular response, akin to saying "because I said so" or "it happened because it happened."
But you failed to answer the key question, raised in the very first post: Why does Realpolitik mean that Clinton gets a free pass from feminists for behavior that is inarguably anti-feminist?
Russell Kirk had the goods on this one. He notes that when ideology trumps the normative standards of virtue, any behavior is permissable. And this discredits feminism by relegating its ideals to successes determined not by ideal behavior, but counting coup and seeing whose ox is being gored before complaining. Shorter version: "Bill Clinton gets away with it because he's one of us."
It's a a low standard to meet in the first place, and yet Bill was able to lower the bar of acceptable behavior even further.
JodyTresidder said: "... having never "dismissed" his sexual behavior at the time as "acceptable", understanding he's paid for his priapic stupidity
He paid with impeachment, and he paid Hillary, I expect. But Clinton never, ever paid feminism for his priapic stupidity. They drew a line in the sand called "sexual harassment", and he took one giant step over it. It seems to me the only line they'll gripe about is called "abortion". Everything else is permissible. For the left, feminism is defined "pro-abortion".
Jody
I liked your answer. While I think we disagree in certain areas, I better understand your point now, and can see more clearly how you approach this question. It was -literally- one in a thousand! Thank you.
Jessica original comment was in response to one of your commenters who used your reference to the arrangement of the bloggers to draw a Monica = Jessica conclusion. After that, all the escalation came from you. Remember:
Well, Jessica, you do appear to be "posing." Maybe it's just an accident.
I'm judging you by your apparent behavior. It's not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing
Meaning she in fact should be judged by how she looks in the picture. You really need to stop all this "But you're misreading my original post" business when, in fact, people are reading your comments to said post. Your misogynist commenters seem to be the ones who misread you, and you went right along with it when given the chance to insult Jessica specifically. "Oh, but she was asking for it by posting a response to a comment on my blog which denigrated her." Uh-huh.
Now, will you admit you brought this on yourself by escalating what could have ended with you NOT saying anything?
Derve, the saddest thing about your post is that you clearly spent a lot of time on it and still came up with bullshit.
I'm from a family of football coaches - including one who has 3 Super Bowl rings in addition to his trophies as a player.
None of them - NONE OF THEM - would ever say the drivel you just spouted.
Just the opposite in fact.
JackGoff said... : "you brought this on yourself by escalating what could have ended with you NOT saying anything?"
That's right, Ann. This 23 year male old undergrad knows more about feminism than you'll ever hope to understand. Jack's admonition to not speak is based on years and years of gender studies and realpolitik and other stuff. So, listen up, Ann.
Right, pogo. So you go the opposite route of everyone who called Ann an old hag (which I didn't) by dismissing my statement as "ya darn kids with yer loud music"! That's cool, except it isn't logically valid. Keep trying, boy-o.
years and years of gender studies
It doesn't take much study to be able to read, and all I see is Ann calling Jessica out on her pose in a picture. By making the comment, she forces Jessica to respond to the indictment, or let it go. Since it affected Jessica negatively, she responded as such. Ann then lambastes her for think herself attractive...I'm not sure of a lot of things, due to my youth, for sure, but I do know who began the invective in this case.
Oh, nevermind. You read David Horowitz. [cautiously backs away so as to not frighten the poor creature]
Jack said: "You read David Horowitz."
Can I ruin your day, Jack? I read Horowitz and I like these among your favorite stuff, too:
Favorite Movies
LOTR Amelie Ikiru Shawshank Redemption Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Favorite Music
Belle & Sebastian Flaming Lips Nirvana Pink Floyd Nick Drake Bob Marley and the Wailers CCR David Bowie Radiohead The Pixies The Decemberists Stevie Wonder
And I enjoy the fact that these are now forever -somewhat- tainted for you.
As for "damn kids". You're right. You're a kid. You don't know much. In 20 years, maybe you'll know more, and be less goofy in your pronouncements. Ann lived feminism. You just read about it on the back of a box of Frankenberry before school.
Jack: I agree that I made the decision to do the second post and stand by what I wrote in it and my defense of writing it the way I did. You assume my goal was to have everyone stop talking as soon as possible. It wasn't. I am critical of a lot of things and have not received a respose to what I've actually said. My opponents demonstrated a lot of devastating things as they flail away. I may eventually do another post analyzing the significance of what they've chosen to say and what they've avoided facing up to, but it will take a lot of work to do properly, and I don't have time to do it right now.
That's the first time I've ever heard Virginia Woolf equated with a box of Frankenberry cereal. And I've read The Professor. Anti-academic bullshit. THAT'S why you scare me. Nothing else you say can taint the greatness of the music I like.
belledame222 wrote:
You know why people aren't doing this? Because it -isn't the bloody point.- There IS no principle here; this is an ass-cover. Y'all were being sniggery seventh graders over the brunette with the big tits
Excuse me?!? I did nothing remotely of the sort. If you're going to respond to my comments, have the decency to actually address my point, not lump me in with others whose behavior you have issues with.
I defy you to show me where I made anything remotely like a judgmental comment about Jessica's anatomy, in this or any other context.
IT. DOESN'T. EXIST.
My comments here are addressed precisely at one thing: the concept of someone who makes feminist advocacy a major part of their life cozying up to a misogynist like Clinton. That doesn't make sense to me.
That's it. And as far as I'm concerned, that precisely is the point. If there's a principled argument that feminists should dismiss Clinton's serial abuse of women, then there's no dissonance over Jessica meeting with him, and the alleged irony of her in that photo is non-existent.
Can you see that? Jessica appearing with someone without Clinton's history is a non-event, as is someone appearing with Clinton who just doesn't care about his misogyny.
Is the argument truly that feminists just shouldn't care about Clinton's serial misogyny... what, because he's a powerful Democrat with dreamy eyes? What is this, the fifties?
If you're going to quote me, then respond to me, damn it.
And for the record, I see no cognitive dissonance in any of my positions here. Don't put your baggage about others in this thread onto me. I didn't earn it and don't deserve it.
Re: "That's the first time I've ever heard Virginia Woolf equated with a box of Frankenberry cereal."
And it won't be the last. Virginia Woolf? Sheesh. Try reading Paul Johnson's brief bio of her in The Intellectuals.
I didn't read the Professors. It's a tired topic for me, but it's not "anti-academic", whatever that means. Try his earlier stuff about the 1960s and see what you have to say then. It'll open your eyes about some of your supposed heroes.
And I just know that the next time you listen to Kid A or Thom Yorke's new Eraser that there will be a little twinge when it starts. And it makes me happy.
I'll take my chances with A Room of One's Own thanks. You do think mightily of yourself, good sir. I have met the self-important anti-academic, and he is you. Ta ta.
Anti-academic: defending against the act of learning and academia. Is it really that hard?
JackGoff: "It doesn't take much study to be able to read, and all I see is Ann calling Jessica out on her pose in a picture."
False. Jessica showed up in the comments to my post, which was general, saying look at this picture and not pointing her. She called attention to herself, and when I was conciliatory, she proceeded to say that indeed she was "posing." Instead of simply saying, no I was just standing there, it was nothing. She made a comment about how people were judging her by her looks, volunteering something that no one had said, making it her opinion that she thought she looked good.
"By making the comment, she forces Jessica to respond to the indictment, or let it go. Since it affected Jessica negatively, she responded as such."
False. As indicated.
"Ann then lambastes her for think herself attractive..."
Not to think it. To say... It's laughable and I laughed.
"I'm not sure of a lot of things, due to my youth, for sure, but I do know who began the invective in this case."
Well, since you're absolutely wrong, one of the things you don't know is what you don't know. You can note that as an attribute of the young if you want.
JackGoff said "I'll take my chances with A Room of One's Own thanks."
Better to stay safe in your little PC-feminist box, than to venture out and see what the New Left was really doing to women in the 1930s-1970s.
"I have met the self-important anti-academic, and he is you."
Pogo Possum said "We have met the enemy, and he is us." So you're close. But by your definition ("defending against the act of learning and academia") you are just flinging scat.
JackGoff said "You do think mightily of yourself, good sir." Good sir? Heavens, you don't know me at all. I think myself rather inconsequential, in sum. When I die, few will know the diference. You're a poor judge of character, if that's an example thereof.
JackGoff said "Ta ta." Typical drive-by intelectual posing.
But think of me when you listen to Subterranean Homesick Alien.
jodytresidder wrote:
Well, what IS feminism, then, Barry. An aspect of "lifestyle" - or "a major part of...self-identification"?
There are principles of equity feminism, and then there's feminist advocacy. Can you see how it's not an either-or?
I suspect outing yourself as a Friend of Adorable Equity comes with an amazing number of hidden caveats.
Really? Since you suspect I have such an amazing number, I'm sure you won't mind sharing 20 or 30 of my caveats, right?
Realpolitik answers many of your questions
I don't see how it does in any principled way. Clinton isn't in power today... where is the realpolitik advantage to acting today like he gets a pass for his previous behavior?
as does judging Clinton NOT as the scum of one part - as you do - having never "dismissed" his sexual behavior at the time as "acceptable", understanding he's paid for his priapic stupidity and so on.
I'm sorry... did I miss where he's "paid" for his priapic stupidity with respect to Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick? Perhaps I missed the letter of support that Jessica wrote on behalf of Kathleen and Juanita (among others). Do you have a link, perhaps?
Here's a link to an article by the two of them. It clearly illustrates my point. Would you like to respond to the substance of it?
Does his meaningless indictment somehow wipe the slate clean of all other misogynistic incidents of his?
None of which answers the question of why it was acceptable to hose Jessica with sexist humiliation because - in her detractors' opinions - she was asking for it.
I don't think it was, nor did I say it was. But how people view Jessica's behavior depends to a great extent on what they perceive her motives and principles to be.
If Jessica has a sound reason why she believes that feminists today should just forget Clinton's behavior and act like he's some worthy icon of adoration, then comments against her appearance and behavior are grossly unjust. They're juvenile and sophomoric regardless.
I've seen no such argument offered my her. Did I miss it?
If she's simply clueless to history (which I doubt immensely, given much of her writing), then such comments go beyond pointing out the irony and into the realm of petty cruelty. That's sad.
If she's dissonant over this, and puts herself proudly in this meeting despite knowing how reprehensible Bill is, then I think it's understandable why some would see her responses as disingenuous.
I don't know her mind. I do know that I fail to understand why the realpolitik maneuver in the past shouldn't have been "we support his pro-woman policies but condemn his actions and behavior"... not apologetics and hate-filled trashing of the women who came forward at the time to report his behavior.
Pogo nailed it:
Russell Kirk had the goods on this one. He notes that when ideology trumps the normative standards of virtue, any behavior is permissable. And this discredits feminism by relegating its ideals to successes determined not by ideal behavior, but counting coup and seeing whose ox is being gored before complaining. Shorter version: "Bill Clinton gets away with it because he's one of us."
Well then, I'll pretend the previous post doesn't exist until I hear back. Cross-posting happens... shrug.
Jody,
I see you're still here, like me, so I am going to try to reply, since, as Pogo pointed out, you are literally the only person who has discussed any of this seriously.
First off, let me say the following:
One of the regular commenters here insulted Jessica's looks and I immediately told him that was below the usual level of discourse here, and wrong.
Also, I commented on one of these threads days ago that I did not believe Jessica posed the way she did on purpose--it doesn't make any sense to me that she would. I think the photographer made a really stupid decision positioning her where she is.
With that said...
Should people have pointed it out? Made fun of it? Here's where the ridicule part comes in: for me, Jessica left herself wide open because she is a feminist and she met with Bill Clinton. Here's why:
(this might be kind of long, apologies in advance)
In the early 90s, I considered myself an ardent feminist, voted for Clinton, the whole shebang. I didn't care about the Genifer Flowers affair, because Hillary didn't seem to. When Paula Jones came forward, I tended to believe her--I believed Anita Hill, after all--but I liked Clinton and reserved judgment. Then the "trailer trash" stuff started coming out. Clinton's people saying really nasty stuff about her. That became hard to ignore.
Then Monica happened. And more of the same. It became obvious to me that Monica was similarly being painted as a stalker weirdo etc.--precisely in an attempt to hurt Paula Jones case. Let me emphasize: I did not view this through the prism of infidelity; all of this was happening in the context of a charge of sexual harassment against the President, a president who claimed to support the advancement of women in society. Anyway, then we had Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaderick... how many stories could I ignore?
I have been stalked and I have been sexually harassed at work as well. So it is very easy to put myself in the shoes of these women. I could only imagine what it would feel like to be victimized by some jackass and then have him and all his minions telling the world that I was a lying slut.
This is the source of my scorn when I hear feminists support Clinton. This is why I look at someone like Jessica posing for a photo with Clinton, and see her as a betrayer of feminism. I'll admit, I probably take it a little too personally because of my personal experience with sexual harassment.
But I basically look at it like this: if you are a victim of sexual harassment and you can't look to feminists for support... who can you possibly look to?
This is why I think Bill Clinton--and the feminists who defend him--damaged the feminist movement and all the progress made with sexual harassment irreparably. If his people, and feminists, attack and igore the accusers, then why ever come forward? You will surely only get accused of being a liar or a slut.
This is coming from someone who was a Women's Studies minor, still considers herself a feminist, and definitely considers herself a neo-con largely because of the way women are treated by our enemy.
belledame222 wrote:
You do understand that "y'all" is a collective "you," right? And that posting directly after someone's post does not in fact mean one is specifically addressing that post and that post only, right?
Y'all is a contraction of "you all", not "you some". I'm also not a member of the collective "you" that you sought to condemn... yet it's my post you quote.
I also understand that when you quote from only one person's post, it's a reasonable inference that you're addressing that post.
I'm sorry if that concept eludes you somehow.
You clearly make a point of firing off multiple posts in a row, and in not a few cases, you address a single post each time.
And no, I am not going to go trawling to see what you, one of many many many posters on this loathsome, utterly disingenuous woman's site, did or didn't say.
In other words, you were talking smack out of ignorance, and now you want to run from it. Predictable, really.
Who the fuck are you?
Someone that you've wrongly maligned. Not that you'd give a rip... integrity is clearly not your long suit.
By all means though... keep right on screeching. I'm sure you're swaying scores of people towards your point of view with every steaming pile of "wisdom" that you're dispensing here.
I'm closing down the comments here. Most of what could be said has been said, and I'm tired of monitoring this. Some annoying comments toward the end have been deleted. Go write your own blog. I'm tired of trying to engage respectfully with people who won't drop the nasty tone when speaking to me on my own blog. Take that somewhere else and make a mess of your own place.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा