Topics and times:
Do women like looking at women? (07:41)ADDED: There's an interesting discussion in the first segment about the ways of the journalist. Garance says, "I'm used to sitting quietly and using awkward silences to learn things." This makes me ask her if this is "a sort of a trick."
'Momoirs' and third-wave feminists (10:23)
Polygamy in NYC, wife-beating in Germany (09:25)
Too much Gore in 'An Inconvenient Truth'? (09:30)
Candidates and their wives and husband (08:20)
Is Ann a conservative? We don't know, but she gets really mad here (10:36)
Whew, that's over. Let's talk about things guys write on the web about women (17:01)
GARANCE: It's one of the ways that people report. It's a reporting technique. Being incredibly awkward. It's a reporting technique. There's also: seeming like you don't know what you're doing.Althouse thought: So is this what you're going to try to do to me in this diavlog?
ANN: Oh! So it's a scam?
GARANCE: Well, I mean, that was the whole book: "The Journalist and the Murderer." Right? I mean...
ANN: Yeah, I read that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
GARANCE: I mean, there's this idea that a journalist is inherently a somewhat... I mean, you're forging a bond in which it's very instrumental. It's a very instrumental bond.
ANN: But it's interesting that there's a pretense of ineptitude. It does remind me of sort of like a stereotypical male-female dating where the woman acts sort of helpless and is actually really thinking about everything that's going on and trying to control the situation by appearing helpless.Althouse thought: Does this make me the boy here?
GARANCE: Right! Right.
ANN: You think there's like a gender relationship in journalism?
GARANCE: Maybe. I mean, maybe only because you're in the questioning role, and you're sort of putting yourself in that subservient questioning role.
MORE: There's a lot of discussion about how angry I get in that one segment. Some folks think I should pull my punches and adopt some sort of mentoring role. Ridiculous! Garance is an adult. She's over 30 years old and a senior editor at a major newsmagazine. Either I am in a debate with her or it's a mismatch.
UPDATE: Here's a neutral starting point if you want to peruse the evidence that this episode has gone viral. I hope Bob Wright is happy!
ANOTHER UPDATE: So a huge swarm of lefty bloggers in unison declared me to be an absolute witch for getting angry for one minute when Garance -- the woman who began the dialogue by owning up to the technique of "seeming like you don't know what you're doing" -- sprang a touchy old subject on me. What does it all mean? I think either: 1. ordinary human emotion frightens bloggers out of their wits or 2. the lefty bloggers are demonstrating my point that they are vicious and nasty. Of course, I think it's #2. I really find it too hard to believe that they are so numb or robotic that anger seems bizarre and insane. I could be wrong, but I think that's terribly sad. Or are you thinking: Ooh! Sadness! How crazy! No, no, you guys are just boring politicos -- still ready to do anything to defend your man Bill Clinton and to say whatever you must to deny that he set feminism back 20 years.
Posts
250 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 250 of 250But Beth, that's the same point that she's been making all along - almost verbatim, in fact!
Simon, it's been hard to see that point surrounded as it has been from her first post on it by words like "breastblogging" and the landslide of comments like fen's above (down on their knees and swallowing) that turned the whole discussion into a disgusting, slimy, howling dog pack of a thing. Ann's point got lost, at least to me, amidst that ugliness, and I was disappointed to see her letting most of that go by unchallenged and unmoderated. So what's left is "the Jessica Valenti breast thing" and not the reasonable point Ann sought to make.
Ezra Klein: Oh, and so long as I'm responding to Althouse more substantively
Which she never does. I hope she is not also a "harvard-trained mind". Sheesh.
But here's my fav post over there, and indicative of the Lefty vitriol Ann was touching on:
soullite: "I don't get how anyone can like conservatives. It's been clear to me for a long time that they don't view us as human. They'd herd us into camps and butcher us if they could, of that I have no doubt. They think of us as vermin that needs to be exterminated, and many have all but said so. How can they expect us to treat them well when it's clear they've been trying to set the table for our murders for a long time. Treated them like anything but a total enemy just confirms to them that we are weak and pathetic. It will only hasten the day they decide to put their decades long rhetoric into action."
Gotta love that mindset: His unfounded belief is used to justify his hatred of me. I think he wants to exercise his own hatred without remorse, and would make up any reason to justify it.
Fen
If you're a feminist then you believe women are equal to men, and thus "sleeping your way to the top" is antithesis to feminism and unfair to women not sleeping their way to the top. Just say no and tell them to zip their zipper. Easy. Lewinsky was a grown woman.
As far as accusations go with Paula Jones, that's the heart of the matter with the Valenti posts - I think Ann's position that Clinton was accused of something that was investigated at length, and that this disqualifies a feminist having their picture taken with him is ludicrous, with all due respect.
is this thread taking place in an alternate universe where up is down and right is wrong? i mean, seriously, i'm at a loss to understand this.
Little Green Footballs is one of the most hate-filled sites on the internet. regular posters there (not anonymous ones, but regulars) often threaten violence against political figures. michelle malkin has both directly and indirectly (in the most loathsome way possible) threatened many of her perceived enemies. meanwhile, these aren't little sideshows--these are the most popular right wing sites in the world, literally. and i'm supposed to take anyone's (not just ann's, but her in-lockstep-unironically commenters) position on "incivility on the left" seriously?
this is just extraordinary. and ann's attack on garance was utterly uncalled for, and extremely...wait for it...uncivil. there is no context that changes that fact. none.
Beth said...
"[Beth, that's the same point that she's been making all along - almost verbatim, in fact!] Simon, it's been hard to see that point surrounded as it has been from her first post on it by words like 'breastblogging'..."
Well, I guess I'm at a loss then. I don't think it was "hard to see." The point seemed pretty clear to me.
"...and the landslide of comments like fen's above ... that turned the whole discussion into a disgusting, slimy, howling dog pack of a thing. Ann's point got lost ,at least to me, amidst that ugliness."
One of the concern I had about the last time Althouse went to moderated comments was the ambiguity in the term used commonly to denote comments that appeared publicly: "approved." That it would be assumed (or at least, portrayed) in certain quarters that anything that was permitted would not merely be tolerated, but would also bear Ann's imprimatur. In other words, it would provide ammunition to the ADS crowd, who would try to hoist by her commenters' petard. Now, I know you're not in that group, Beth, but it seems as if you're trying to do exactly that. Even worse, actually: applying it to a period when comments weren't even being moderated before appearance.
(And, of course, it's catch 22: you're seemingly criticizing her for not moderating more aggressively, but if Ann did moderate comments more aggressively, she'd be lambasted for censorship. The goal of the ADS crowd - all of whom seem to be on the left, weirdly enough - isn't to hold her to a consistent standard, it's to attack her using whatever weapon offers itself to hand).
The appropriate materials to determine what the point actually was were Ann's contemporaneous posts and her own comments - not what commenters here (sympathetic or otherwise) wrote, and certainly not what Valenti, Marcotte etc. said. And those posts and comments seemed entirely clear to me, no less so than the text you quoted above.
Fen said...
"Ezra Klein: Oh, and so long as I'm responding to Althouse more substantively. Which he never does. I hope he is not also a 'harvard-trained mind.' Sheesh."
It seems unlikely - he looks like he's about sixteen. Acts it, too.
If you're a feminist then you believe women are equal to men, and thus "sleeping your way to the top" is antithesis to feminism and unfair to women not sleeping their way to the top.
Yes, but that doesn't mean you excuse predatory sexual behavior in the workplace. Especially if its from someone on your side. You certainly don't expend your time and energy denouncing sexual predators, and then proudly pose for pictures with them.
It is interesting that the whole "it's about the betrayal of feminism" fiction is still persisting on this blog.
But lets be honest here, Ann started trashing Jessica BEFORE she knew who Jessica was, or that she ran a feminist blog. There were snide comments made about Jessica's appearance and assumptions made about her education and her behavior just because she happend to be an attractive woman in a picture with Bill Clinton.
The whole "breast debacle" only became about feminism once Jessica's identity was public.
The issue on the feminist side of the blogosphere had nothing to do with Jessica's support for Clinton. The issue is that Anne and commentors on this blog objectified and mocked a woman just for being attractive. You made assumptions about her that were crude, and degraded her as a person.
You can hide behind the whole "what was a feminist doing hanging out with Clinton" fiction all you want, but that was never what this was about. This was about a woman making assumptions about another woman based on her appearance. And now that she knows that Jessica isn't just "some intern" she doesn't even have the guts to appologize. And instead makes it about some fictional policy debate.
Check the archives, that's not what happend here kids. Why not be intellectually honest for a change. DESPITE your objections to a feminist supporting Bill Clinton, that does not give you the right to desparage her character and her appearance.
Ann, it just seemed to me you exploded on her. I read your blog occasionally, and I am neither for nor against it. Our interests don't overlap and all, or your posts don't engage me.
I watched your diavlog with Jonah Goldberg and then the segment with Garance.
It appears you struggle with criticism, and have a hair-trigger temper and are thin skinned. Being a professor of law, you are bright and articulate. so I am sure that any attempt to present evidence would surely be counter-argued and attacked pretty well, regardless of which side was stronger.
I realize this may seem unfair; it is in the sense that I am opting out of debate with you or your supporters. My experience has been that debate really isn't possible 90% of the time, on any blog, right or left.
But I've seen your responses and I don't want any part of it. Maybe the rough and tumble of the net is ill-suited to your style. You do seem to struggle with separating the idea from the holder of it.
Boy, you just ATTACKED Garance. I felt embarrassed for you.
Most probably like the emotional fireworks of impassioned debate. To me, it seems on the pitiful side. Way too self-righteous and high and mighty.
It might help to relax a bit, although I am sure that the relentless vitriol of the blogosphere must make that so very tough. Back in the day, I actually went to the Feministing site and concluded that your criticism of the photo was absurd, but that the breast imagery proliferated on that site and seemed to, however playfully or ironically, rely upon "objectified" breast imagery to capture attention.
So I reached a mixed verdict, myself. I too thought that Feministing was a portmanteau of fisting and feminism, as well as 'verbifying' feminsim. I had the temerity to post my 'verdict' on the Feministing site, and holeeey cow! I woke up pretty fast. Such nastiness.
So I empthasize. Who wouldn't be shell shocked after that? I was.
But the episode doesn't seem to have done you much good, if your response to Garance is observed.
r
Naked Lunch said...
"As far as accusations go with Paula Jones, that's the heart of the matter with the Valenti posts - I think Ann's position that Clinton was accused of something that was investigated at length, and that this disqualifies a feminist having their picture taken with him is ludicrous, with all due respect."
Well, whether that position is ludicrous is a debatable issue. But the point here is that Valenti et al refused to acknowledge precisely what you concede: that there was a serious and valid point being made about feminists and Clinton. They were determined to avoid that point, and so blew out a big aul' smokescreen to avoid the substance of the point.
What's the big deal?
Ann highlights how her blogging style is similar to performance art. It's meant to be combative and provacative.
Some see this as shallow and pointlessly narcissistic, and a barrier to real discussion.
If you watch her blow up at that point, I can see how her defenders love her moxy and others just see a poor-me attitude.
In her diavlog with Jonah Goldberg, Ann makes a mistake and revealingly equates criticism of her view with criticism of herself.
It's really not any deeper than this - she's a provacateur, but she's also thin skinned as well as being understandably shocked at the amount of raw hate and nastiness out there. But she invites it too, with her defiant and unrepetant style. She's on the receiving end of a whole lot of sickeningly puerile snark, but she seeks controversy and seems to struggle with handling it.
Pretty typical for people who like conflict and fireworks in my experience.
Shinobi writes, "The whole "breast debacle" only became about feminism once Jessica's identity was public."
That's somewhat true. Prior to that, the joke was at how easily cowed the Democratic bloggers could be at a chicken lunch with Bill Clinton. And in that group, yes, Ms. Valenti stuck out as even more dorkily star-struck.
Simon, if the question for Ann was what is a feminist doing associating with a sexual predator like Clinton, the question I had as the comments developed on her blog was what is a feminist doing tolerating the degrading crap being spewed about the other feminist in question. I don't care about the intricacies of whether moderating comments amounts to approval of the comments left unmoderated, but I do care that most of the worst excesses in that comment thread went unremarked by her. I would have much rather found myself posing in the photo with Clinton than to wade knee-deep in the sexist sewage created by some of the commentors here who used Ann's point to do nothing more than devolve into juvenile jokes about breasts and blow jobs.
Minimoe-
"If you watch her blow up at that point, I can see how her defenders love her moxy and [critics] just see a poor-me attitude."
That much I believe. It's hard to take seriously the idea that many people (if any) have changed their minds because of this. Who was a critic yesterday is a critic today; who was a so-called sycophant yesterday is a so-called sycophant today. Perhaps the whole episode is an Althousian rohrschach: viewers see in the exchange confirmation of their prejudices about Ann.
Your a star on the blogs today Ann-that must account for something, huh?
Maybe you just put BloggingHeads on the map also. I would much rather watch you and some other attractive woman on bloggingheads than Micky Kaus-and I'm gay.
I am pretty sure Ezra isn't "Harvard trained". I know my Harvard peeps and I don't think Ezra is one of them. I think he attended-wait for it- a public school-UCLA. That was hard for me to say.
Right now I am looking out my window and seeing the fabulous dorms of Harvard. Sorry, there is something kind of fabulous about it.
Simon
My entire points rides on there will never be equality if women are always referred to as, and accepted as empty vessel playthings unable to resist charms from men and almost inevitable they fall prey to perceived power. Ann rightfully pointed out GFR was a mid 30's woman fully capable of defending herself and her positions and be responsible for them. Why would Monica be any different?
Robert Green said:
Little Green Footballs is one of the most hate-filled sites on the internet. regular posters there (not anonymous ones, but regulars) often threaten violence against political figures. michelle malkin has both directly and indirectly (in the most loathsome way possible) threatened many of her perceived enemies. meanwhile, these aren't little sideshows--these are the most popular right wing sites in the world, literally. and i'm supposed to take anyone's (not just ann's, but her in-lockstep-unironically commenters) position on "incivility on the left" seriously?
It doesn't get any truer than that, Robert. You nailed it.
Ann's contention that the liberal blogs are uniquely nasty reflects her own experience, and little else.
Ann has stated that she doesn't read too many blogs, so I think for the most part she may be unaware of what goes on at blogs such as
Riehl World View
Ace of Spades
Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiller
Little Green Footballs
Michelle Malkin
Debbie Schlussel
Atlas Shruggs
Ann should really check these sites out. They are filled with hate speech that goes far beyond anything on the liberal blogs.
Simon, I agree with your comment at 1:36. Having achieved maximum futility, I will now go prepare my class notes for tomorrow.
Minimoe: "If you watch her blow up at that point, I can see how her defenders love her moxy and [critics] just see a poor-me attitude."
Simon: "That much I believe. It's hard to take seriously the idea that many people (if any) have changed their minds because of this. Who was a critic yesterday is a critic today; who was a so-called sycophant yesterday is a so-called sycophant today. Perhaps the whole episode is an Althousian rohrschach: viewers see in the exchange confirmation of their prejudices about Ann."
I was certainly never a sycophant, but I was a fan, a regular reader and commenter, and I defended Althouse on several occassions elsewhere. But you can count me as someone who changed their mind after this exchange and the ugliness Althouse aimed at me. Its a little ironic too that she saw fit to call me a sexist who can't seem to figure out how to use my brain just after she expressed exasperation at why liberals are so "nasty" and decried how they engage in unfounded "character assassination."
This is my last comment here. Bye all!
this episode has gone viral
Precisely true. It's very curious, as others upthread have noted, that the controversy about breasts was manufactured simply because the all-white poorly-dressed liberal blogger crowd the schmoozed with Clinton couldn't honestly handle being criticized about slobberingly hobnobbing with a serial womanizer, about as un-feminist a person as there can be. And now that controversy follows you to bloggingheads. Good for you to tackle it.
Joseph Hovsep: I regret to say that I agree with you.
The distaste for real human emotion here disturbs me. A person shouldn't get angry when someone suddenly brings up an ugly incident? And then you decide to leave forever because you were offended. So much passive aggression!
I got mad for 1 minute and I subsequently apologized. What sort of people go on and on about that? Good lord!
Professor Althouse:
I saw a portion of your exchange with Garance. I too have wondered about the sources of intense anger, both from the furious left and the enraged right.
You might want to explore the psychoanalytic concept of 'splitting' as a possible explanation for some of the demonization (and idealization) that seems to be associated with extremely partisan liberals and conservatives. Wikipedia has a link about splitting here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_%28psychology%29
I sometimes find the notion of splitting to be a useful fiction.
Elizabeth - just to clarify, I meant "prejudice" in its strict ("any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable"), rather than pejorative, sense.
Joseph - sorry you feel that way. I'll miss your contributions. But let's be clear: you didn't change your mind because of this exchange (clearly: you continued participating after watching it), rather, you changed your mind because you feel like Ann was mean to you upthread. That's valid, but it doesn't change my mind.
Daryl Herbert said...
"Robert Green and ASX: When has Michelle Malkin threatened her enemies in loathsome ways?"
Well, there was that episode where she gave out her enemies' phone numbers and told her supporters to make threatening calls to them. Oh, wait, no, that was done to Malkin, not by her.
Malkin's written some things I strongly disagree with, some of them that I consider to be almost indefensible, but join Daryl in asking for examples where she has physically threatened people who disagree with her.
This is what's generating controversy? Geez. People need to put things in perspective. So you feel strongly about a subject. Big deal.
I think you're wrong on the righty blogs though. They like you because you voted for Bush. If you were to turn against the war, they would turn on you.
Ann:
The distaste for real human emotion here disturbs me.
I agree, except that I believe most of the distate expressed here is imaginary. Given the right opportunity, many of those running around criticizing you would simultaneously do so for a perceived lack of emotion on your part.
A person shouldn't get angry when someone suddenly brings up an ugly incident?
Getting angry is a natural reaction, as is apologizing for it afterwards. Although, as we all know, there are any number of well-known bloggers who go to great lengths to never admit their mistakes and certainly avoid apologizing for them. That you are willing to is certainly to your cedit, although your detractors will give you none.
And then you decide to leave forever because you were offended.
Joseph wrote that he was leaving because he felt he posted in good faith and was treated with a great deal of disrespect in response. It so happens that I agree with him. At the same time, if I were in Joseph's shoes, I probably would have contacted you privately before making an exit.
I got mad for 1 minute and I subsequently apologized.
Yes, you did, for the video incident, which should have ended the subject but it didn't because the disagreement involved two women and many people have a vested interest in seeing you humiliated [See Klein, Ezra]. But no apology was extended to Joseph, which is why he left.
What sort of people go on and on about that?
It does not appear to me that Joseph went on and on about anything, although others have, as those who do not like you tend to do.
Ronin: Joseph was reacting to my saying "This isn't an innocent young woman. This is a 35 year old woman who graduated with honors from Harvard. Your protective instinct is bullshit." Yes, bullshit is a strong word, but to leave in a huff because of it is a bit much. The fact is that he was speaking as if he didn't get that Garance is not a young, inexperienced woman. She's a near-middle-aged senior editor. And she knew what she was doing. She admitted to having a journalist's technique of looking naive. Rushing to protect her was falling for it.
Regardless of whether or not Ann's objection to the framing of the controversy was appropriate, her reaction showed a lack of poise.
Nobody's perfect though, Ann. Just try to keep your cool next time.
Ann: I understand your position. (My perception of the exchange was different but that is just my opinion.) I think it is a bad idea to leave anywhere for good because of a single perceived or actual slight. (If I did that myself, I wouldn't be posting anywhere, except my own blog, and even that would be open to question.) In this case, I do wish I had kept my mouth shut (or fingers off the keyboard), as the more I think about it, the more I think a mature response would have been to contact you privately about his concerns and not make a public exit.
Joseph has been a credible, intelligent commenter. I mourn his loss. Ann, you omit in your reply just above that you also accused him of sexism, and I'm fairly certain he found that beyond the pale. I agree. I don't believe there is anything sexist on his part in arguing that Garance might have asked her question in good faith. That's a matter of perception, and I see no reason to assume Joseph was being chivalrous rather than expressing his considered interpretation of what he saw on the diavlog.
I think Internet Ronin is right as well, and wish Joseph had contacted you privately before deciding to split.
Elizabeth: You're right. I'd forgotten that part. Well, that was my real perception, I must admit. I can see that it's too much of an attack though. I don't like seeing a good commenter pack up and leave like that.
Why should Joseph contact Althouse privately? From what I just read, it turns out that Althouse thinks he was a good commenter. Does the obligation for good faith between blogger and comment only go in go one direction?
Drat. That's right. We're under moderation (which I understand, and do not criticize). But I'm in no mood to stick around and see if this posted, and correctly attributed (a google issue which isn't Althouse's).
I'll have to keep that in mind.
I'd never say to pull your punches if you think you're being confronted in a sexist way. But I agree that here, in this context, having that perception and laying it out with little discussion--this thread is far too heated and lengthy for much meaningful dialogue--was too much. That's why I wish he'd taken it up with you offline; I still hope that happens at some point and we see him back here in the future.
May I say that, while I have my disagreements with you over some of the issues being raised here, I don't envy you your place in this whirlwind and I wish you only grace and strength as you face it.
Of course I'm not leaving because I'm offended by Althouse's overreaction to Garance. I think I adequately explained why I was offended (and agree with the clarifications by Internet Ronin, Elizabeth, Simon). Frankly, I felt a bit humiliated at the disrespect Ann Althouse showed me given my long history of civil commenting here and after personally defending Althouse in more hostile venues. Something clicked and I realized this is just not the place for me.
I also realized that this space is not and is not intended to be some idealized forum I had imagined it to be where respectful and productive sharing of different perspectives is fostered.
I read and comment on blogs for pleasure. I've gotten a fair bit of satisfaction here and I thank Ann Althouse and commenters here for that, but I find myself increasingly frustrated and annoyed. I want to spend my time engaging in something that makes me more fulfilled and less stressed.
Was it passive-aggressive to "leave in a huff"? I suppose so, but I'd also invested too much in this community to simply stop participating without indicating why. So this is my explanation.
I wish you all the best.
Joseph: I really am very sorry that I took such an aggressive stance toward you as I was fending off attacks yesterday. I hope you'll reconsider and stick around. I've been trying to improve the comments here, and it's a shame that right as I was trying to do that this incident occurred. I really want things to be more civil and to continue the good debate. Maintaining a high-quality comments section is a huge part of why I spend so much time working on this blog.
Ann Althouse:
So a huge swarm of lefty bloggers in unison declared me to be an absolute witch for getting angry for one minute when Garance -- the woman who began the dialogue by owning up to the technique of "seeming like you don't know what you're doing" -- sprang a touchy old subject on me.
To be fair, Franke-Ruta "sprang a touch old subject" on you when you asked her why her colleagues at the American Prospect don't like you.
And as Franke-Ruta points out on her blog, it didn't seem like a "touchy old subject" in your diavlog with Glenn Reynolds and Helen Smith. [1]
That apology to Joseph is very heartwarming, Ann. I am sorry you are going through this rough spot for having, as you say, shown human emotions. And it was good of you to apologize to Garance at the end of the diavlog. I just wish you would refrain from attributing to her intentions that you don't know for a fact she had. Other people (in other venues) have been suggesting that you did what you did just to draw attention to yourself. That insinuation is, to me, wildly unfair to you as a person. But you are engaging in a similar kind of mind-reading when you attribute bad faith to your interlocutors. Please consider this a friendly comment; it is certainly not written with any venom whatsoever.
Joseph: Was it passive-aggressive to "leave in a huff"? I suppose so, but I'd also invested too much in this community to simply stop participating without indicating why
Well, I hope you change your mind. I also enjoyed your commentary here. If, in a few days, you feel as if you have over-reacted to Ann, try to imagine that Ann might also have over-reacted to you, esp considering that she was being hectored by Buzzards looking for payback over the Valenti mess.
Anyways, you'll be missed. And I'm sorry if my participation in that thread made it worse for you.
Josh said...
"To be fair, Franke-Ruta "sprang a touch[y] old subject" on you when you asked her why her colleagues at the American Prospect don't like you."
The hostility towards Ann from the leftosphere long predates the Valenti-Clinton kerfuffle, a point that Ann had already made in the course of that segment of the divalog. And it isn't just a question of what was raised, but how it was raised (a point also made by Ann, albeit whilest in full flight). To illustrate: imagine if you're at a conference some day where Ann's on a panel, Josh, and suppose you step up to the mike and start asking a question by referring to "that bloggingheads segment where Ann went totally psycho on Garance." D'you think you're going to get your head handed to you because you brought up a soon-to-be "touch[y] old subject," or because of the manner and context in which you raise it? There's a whole controversy that could be explained in a way that would make sense to people, but you just THROW OUT a term that is character assassinating to Ann.
"And as Franke-Ruta points out on her blog, it didn't seem like a "touchy old subject" in your diavlog with Glenn Reynolds and Helen Smith."
Totally different context. Glenn and Helen have not engaged in (and are not associated with a "movement" that engages in) routine verbal hostility towards Ann in general and misrepresentation of her criticism about Valenti in particular.
BTW - Josh, are you at IU as a student, or faculty?
Simon, that is what Althouse originally said, she objected to the phrase "Jessica Valenti breast controversy" but as I pointed out earlier, Althouse herself disparaged Valenti for her "breast-enhancing" pose and her "breastblog". I will also add that Althouse implicitly criticized Valenti for not wearing a bra [2]). Since Althouse chose to go along this road of criticism she can't complain about Franke-Ruta's choice of phrase.
You may disagree with Franke-Ruta's answer, but that is not a justification for blowing up at someone, especially if they are giving an answer to a question you asked (if you don't want answers you disagree with, don't ask them). I don't think it matters what movement the person giving the answer is associated with either. Althouse agreed to do a diavlog with Garance Franke-Ruta from The American Prospect. If certain touchy -- but well-known -- subjects are going to provoke me into bullying behavior when they're brought up by someone from The American Prospect but not when they're brought up by Glenn Reynolds, then I probably shouldn't agree to do the diavlog with the person from TAP. After all, it wouldn't kill me to either say "that's a touchy subject for me--could we move on?" or to calmly explain my side of the story, especially since Franke-Ruta was not an aggressive diavlogger and would probably yield the mike for a couple of minutes for Althouse to explain her side.
To answer your other question, I am a graduate student at IU. I see you too are from Indiana--It is nice to see a fellow Hoosier in these discussions.
Josh: "Simon, that is what Althouse originally said, she objected to the phrase "Jessica Valenti breast controversy" but as I pointed out earlier, Althouse herself disparaged Valenti for her "breast-enhancing" pose and her "breastblog". I will also add that Althouse implicitly criticized Valenti for not wearing a bra [2])."
This is the first time I've even considered the question whether she was wearing a bra. I always assumed she was. Who, being female, would go to lunch with the President without wearing a bra? It never crossed my mind. And I've gone braless as often as possible myself (and pushed the envelope).
"Since Althouse chose to go along this road of criticism she can't complain about Franke-Ruta's choice of phrase."
I chose to mock the lunching bloggers, for sure. That doesn't mean I accept anyone mocking me in a personal conversation. If I knew in advance that my interlocutor was going to give me back what I gave to the bloggers, I would have declined that Blogginghead pairing. Obviously, I thought Garance crossed a line. You can see it on my face right before I get mad. Maybe I crossed a line too and maybe I was wrong, but I felt the relationship, established in 50 minutes of conversation, had been broken and I had been ambushed. I felt it as a betrayal. Again, I concede I may have misread it and I'm sorry I got mad.
"You may disagree with Franke-Ruta's answer, but that is not a justification for blowing up at someone, especially if they are giving an answer to a question you asked (if you don't want answers you disagree with, don't ask them). I don't think it matters what movement the person giving the answer is associated with either. Althouse agreed to do a diavlog with Garance Franke-Ruta from The American Prospect. If certain touchy -- but well-known -- subjects are going to provoke me into bullying behavior when they're brought up by someone from The American Prospect but not when they're brought up by Glenn Reynolds, then I probably shouldn't agree to do the diavlog with the person from TAP. After all, it wouldn't kill me to either say "that's a touchy subject for me--could we move on?" or to calmly explain my side of the story, especially since Franke-Ruta was not an aggressive diavlogger and would probably yield the mike for a couple of minutes for Althouse to explain her side."
She was not aggressive, but she made clear to me at the outset that she used special tricks that entail deniability but are really betrayals of the relationship. Have you read "The Journalist and the Murderer," the book we discuss in the first segment? You are missing a lot here! Have you even watched the first segment? And when you go on Bloggingheads, you have interaction beforehand about what you're going to talk about and so forth, and if she had proposed that topic, I would have refused. So, again, I experienced it as a betrayal of the relationship and a use of a journalist's trick.
Ann Althouse,
I think a fair reading of your comment "It's called a bra" is that it was a slam on Valenti. If I am wrong I apologize. Regardless, you did not just ask "should feminists be doing PR events with Bill Clinton?". You also talked about, in a negative way, a particular individual's "breast-enhancing pose". Thus, I can't really see the phrase "the Jessica Valenti breast controversy" as an unfair description of what happened back in September 2006.
It follows that I do not see her off-the-cuff remark as mocking you, much less betraying you. (For that matter, I am not sure how betrayal could happen on Bloggingheads.tv, unless someone violated an agreement made beforehand that topic X was off-limits.)
I also don't think she was talking about betraying relationships as a journalist. She said she adopts a certain presentation of self to get sources to open up to her, but I think we all put on different presentations of self in a variety of situations, often for instrumental reasons. A true betrayal would be making a deceptive statement or breaking a promise.
Josh: You are referring to a comment of mine on my old post, which quotes someone else and then answers like this:
Ann Althouse said..."Redneck Feminist (drumgurl)... " I don't think it is a crime to have boobs that defy gravity. I don't think she was dressed provacatively either. Young women tend to have breasts that stick straight out, even without trying." It's called a bra. Anyway, who thinks "Redneck Feminist" is a woman?"
You're really dumb if you read that as a suggestion that she's NOT wearing a bra. It's exactly the opposite!
Really, you are shockingly dumb. Have you ever been out in the world at all among real women?!!!
I stand corrected. I apologize for reading that as a slam against Valenti. But this doesn't really address my main point. Which is fine, because I don't want to be part of the "civil" and "good debate" you proposed in your last comment to Joseph.
Whoa, whoa, too much information!
Ann: "And I've gone braless as often as possible myself (and pushed the envelope)."
Thanks for this information. See you again. Online Shopping "Bloggingheads
Post a Comment