Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Obsessions with Althouse

Check out the comments of this post at firedoglake : (Found via The Anchoress, via Ace of Spades HQ.) Note that the actual post has nothing to do with Althouse. People still seem to be smarting that Ann raised questions about the compatibility of feminism and supporting Bill Clinton.

Jane Hamsher herself comments:

Agreed. I just am sighing over the fact that the idiots crawl out from under rocks everytime something good happens. Ann Althouse all but called Jessica Feministing a whore. For meeting Bill Clinton.
No shit. Why is it the (sic) women are taking crap for this — from other women?
Nevermind that Althouse never did that. As for me, I was wondering why some women are shrilly denouncing Althouse instead of commenting on the sellout of feminism over Bill Clinton.

The commenter Hamsher quoted chimes back in:

...Althouse should learn to age with dignity.
What a very un-feminist thing to write.

I was really suprised at how pissed I got at the two blogger slams today. Mostly at Althouse for picking on Jessica. At my age I consider Jessica just a kid and I think it is very brave of her to carry a feminist torch. And then to have that old Phyllis Schafly wannabe go after her for her boobs, of all things, really bugged me.

...Damn that Althouse is a bitch.
Except that Ann didn't go after Jessica's boobs, but hey, what can you do? Reading comprehension is down, isn't it? That's why they keep lowering the standards on standardized tests. Also, I don't know that calling Jessica a "kid" and Ann a "bitch" is particularly empowering.

And in response to that comment, the first Althouse-related commenter chimes in yet again:

Both of them bothered me. I guess, because it’s late, I’m having thoughts like, “How much of that repug war chest is being spent to sow discord?
Emphasis mine. Shhhhhh... They're all Rove plants!

Hamsher comes back in with this:

Althouse is abjectly irrational and incapable of basic reading comprehension.
Highly ironic. Hamsher continues:

That her stuff gets posted in the New York Times is emblematic of how the national discourse has been dragged into a ditch and left to die by traditional media.

Althouse will default to her standard line of bullshit — claiming that her serious points are not being addressed and her opponents have devolved into personal attacks.
Except that is isn't bullshit. It's true. Hamsher continues:

It will never graze her consciousness that calling out Jessica like that for her wardrobe choices is petty, bitchy and degrading.

Sorry, we do not “let these things slide.” We fight and kick and scream, even if the cost is giving unwarrented (sic) attention to the extreme narcissists amongst us.

Welcome to the New Democratic Party.
Heh. Good luck winning over voters then.

I'm not sure what this commenter was going for:

I do hope we can somehow “get” Althouse. I never did like Phyllis Schafly and I certainly don’t like her sockpuppet.
Emphasis mine. It's a commenter who wrote about Althouse in one of the earlier comments quoted above but in this comment has his/her writing wrapped in a blockquote. I don't know if that has some kind of significance or if it is a typo. Regardless, another commenter agrees:

Liza is not worth the ink.

The anti-woman Althouse is another matter and a real problematic persona.
A "problematic persona?" What does that mean? This woman, she is becoming a problem for us. Keep an eye on her.

UPDATE: I meant to include these links the first time around. More background on these people's anger at Ann can be found at Dr. Helen's place, here and here.

UPDATE 2: Discussion of the "language of totalitarianism" in the comments.

UPDATE 3: TS at Seixon finds it a bit hypocritical that Hamsher would fault others for commenting on a woman's wardrobe.

56 comments:

Goesh said...

Hamsher has a flabby ideology - it sags when substance pulls on it. This reminds me of the muslim fanatics burning churches and shooting a Nun over the Pope's words. Don't it? I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not fixated on women's breasts nor trying to squeeze a pun here either. Chesty Puller is a hero of mine- see? - he was a highly decorated Marine. I have a bit too much class to be making digs at dugs.

Helen said...

Freeman,

Thanks so much for the link and for your post, but most of all, thank you for your clear headedness and logical way of seeing the world.

These "feminists" keep talking about how young Jessica is--rather a joke--given she is in her late twenties and should quit acting like an ass--I know 10 year olds with more sense and character than this woman seems to have. You seem around the same age and put her to shame with your talent and sensibility. Thanks for all of your blogging--it's great.

TC said...

"Sorry, we do not “let these things slide.” We fight and kick and scream,..."

Against any American who doesn't jump on our bus. "you people" we throw under the wheels.

Lorie Byrd said...

I posted the picture after seeing it at Ann's site and even added a quick comment about not being able to see where Bill Clinton's hands were in the picture.

I know I did not, and I don't think Ann did either, imply anything about the female blogger other than the fact that she was the most attractive of the lot and that she was positioned closest to Clinton. That is all. Just an observation that he still surrounds himself with young adoring females. It seems to me that is just the obvious truth of the matter.

Liberals must have entirely too much time on their hands if they can devote so much energy to something like this.

Karl said...

The hypocrisy of the lefty bloggers involved -- especially Hamsher -- goes much deeper than the "feminists hangin' with Clinton" problem. And they have even less of an answer for it.

David said...

Is anyone else more than a little creeped out by comments talking about "getting" political opponents? Or how political enemies are "problematic personas"?

This is the language of totalitarianism - of those who think the "rightful place" for them and their ideas is one of power, and achieving that end justifies any means.

Sadly, you see these kinds of comments and this kind of thinking all the time on leftists blogs.

Funny that you never really see people on the Right talking this way, though, isn't it?

"She's a problem! I hope we can "get" her soon!"

No, the Right seems much more concerned with fighting battles in the arena of ideas than with "getting" people that have a different point of view.

Just look at Althouse's blog. She is really quite a "moderate", with a great many positions that are considered "liberal". She's as down-the middle as bloggers get.

But look at the reactions to her political opinions from her opponents on the Right versus the Left...

Whenever Althouse states a liberal position, she certainly gets comments from the Right. However, those comments as a whole tend to have persuasion as their goal. Those on the Right who disagree don't scream and call her names. Instead, they try to convince her as to why they think she's wrong. They're respectful and attempt to persuade with debate.

Whenever she states a conservative position, on the other hand, the Left comes into those comments and floods them with a vitriol and personal invective that you woudn't believe. They usually don't even seem to try and argue with her ideas at all - they just resort to name-calling, hatefullness, and indignation.

The difference between the two sides of the blogosphere is quite telling. One is clearly interested in ideas, the other is only interested in some bizarre form of bully activism.

Personally, I'm glad to be on the side that's not filled with discussions of who we need to "get" next.

I sleep better at night that way, and I don't have to sulk around all day, seething in rage and despair as so many on the Left seem to do.

I'd rather stick to talking about ideas.

TC said...

David?
"Is anyone else more than a little creeped out by comments talking about "getting" political opponents? Or how political enemies are "problematic personas"?"

Does it, more to the point, worry you that "bloggers"--fer cryin out loud!--think they swing that kinda weight?

Or worse, actually do?

That's scary crap.

Pyrthroes said...

Since these asinine ultra-Left mudslingers cannot get any worse, and since such encopesis cannot last indefinitely, we presume that Hamscher and her ilk represent an inverse peak of dudgeon destined to be viewed historically as symptomatic of blighted politics, defunct ideologies, depraved and incoherent personalities. "The worst are full of passionate intensity..." Passionate, withal, in no good cause, but invariably as aiders and abetters of murderous Mullahs, prancing jackanapes like Castro and Chavez, despicable thugs like Pol Pot or Kim Jong-il. (Stalin and Mao once seemed good bets, but alas, reality --mortality-- intruded on the God-Emperors of Socialism, leaving only garden-variety slugs mulching political-economic flowerbeds.)

To paraphrase, "There is no God, and Muhammed is His Prophet." Hamscher and her funny-bunnies might put on better blackface to disguise the issue.

Freeman Hunt said...

Thanks, Helen! I appreciate it. Your blog is a daily stop for me.

Steve White said...

If Jessica wishes to be taken seriously as a feminist, perhaps she could write more about issues from a feminist perspective and less on, you know, boobs. When a fair percentage of your blog posts are on body parts, it does tend to create a certain sense of who you are and what you're about.

And if Jessica wants to be taken seriously in a lunch meeting with former Pres. Clinton and other bloggers, perhaps she shouldn't strike a Monica-wannabe pose for the group photo -- and be smart enough to understand in the first place what a Monica-wannabe pose is and what it means. Ms. Lewinsky didn't do serious feminism any favors.

If I were to walk around with a white sheet over my head from time to time, some folks would conclude I have certain identity problems with the KKK, no matter how serious my discourse about the issues of the day. Ms. Hamsher, for example, would prob'ly notice the sheet and not the words.

Moving on: while I don't agree with everything Prof. Althouse writes, she's an excellent writer. She writes in clear, expository English; agree or not with her point, one can discern it. Ms. Hamsher might disagree with everything Prof. Althouse writes, but to dismiss her as "abjectly irrational" invites me, as a neutral reader of Hamsher, to dismiss her instead.

WhatsAPundit said...

David:

"This is the language of totalitarianism - of those who think the "rightful place" for them and their ideas is one of power, and achieving that end justifies any means."

This is the natural reaction of a group that passionately believes it represents the will of the People, but whom the People continually reject at the polls. The root cause can't be that the core values of the movement are out-of-line; therefore sinister forces must be at work suppressing the Progressive Project. In that instance, any means necessary become justified.

dave said...

Wow - there are people as stupid as Althouse?

Please stay in this little corner. Thanks in advance.

(BTW, I always get a kick out of that "libertarian" bullshit. It always seems to involve spewing right-wing Republican talking points. Why is that???)

topsecretk9 said...

This is the language of totalitarianism - of those who think the "rightful place" for them and their ideas is one of power, and achieving that end justifies any means.

Funny you should say...

...I learned this lesson the hard way after I signed on as a contributor to The American Prospect's media criticism blog a few weeks ago. It seemed like a bit of an awkward fit -- the Prospect is a liberal magazine, and I had previously co-founded Spinsanity, a non-partisan watchdog of online spin -- but I assumed they knew who they were hiring. I was wrong.

Last Wednesday, controversy broke out when I slammed two liberal blogs for using an airline employee's suicide after 9/11 to take a cheap shot at President Bush. My post, which initially contained a minor factual error, prompted one of the bloggers, Atrios (aka Duncan Black), to label me the "wanker of the day" and to call on TAP editors to "rethink things a bit." Hundreds of Atrios readers filled the Prospect's comment boards with vitriol. In an email Friday morning, Sam Rosenfeld, the magazine's online editor, asked that I focus my blogging on conservative targets. He specifically objected to two posts criticizing liberals (here and here ) that I wrote after the Atrios controversy. I refused and terminated the relationship....


http://time-blog.com/political_bite/2006/09/everybody_has_one_bloggers_and.html

Anonymous said...

Oh dave. You wound us, just a tiny, tiny little bit.

LoafingOaf said...

This is the language of totalitarianism

Yes. Althouse is someone the "progressive" hard left could've engaged with but instead they view her as an infidel to despise, and a "problematic persona" to "get."

Did you see that Brendan Nyhan (of Spinsanity fame) had to leave The American Prospect because he dared to criticize lefty blogs?

The late Oriana Fallaci, in The Force of Reason, put it like this:

On one side, the comrades. The blessed ones, the faithful. On the other, the infidels or rather infidel-dogs. The Left is a Church. And not a Church similar to the Church which came out of Christianity, thus open to free-will. A Church similar to Islam. Like Islam it considers itself sanctified by a God who is the custodian of the Truth. Like Islam it never acknowledges its faults and its errors, it considers itself infallible and never apologizes. Like Islam it demands a world at its own image, a society built on the verses of its Prophet. Like Islam it enslaves its own followers. It intimidates them, it makes them feel stupid even when they are intelligent. Like Islam it does not accept different opinions and if you think differently it despises you. It denigrates you, it punishes you. Like Islam, in short, it is illiberal. Autocratic, totalitarian, even when it plays the game of democracy.

That's sort of what the "progressive" blogosphere is "progressing" towards, IMHO. In that thread, FireDogLake scolded a black lefty blogger for daring to criticize her "betters."

jim treacher said...

I don't see why it matters what clothes she wore. They were just going to end up on his office floor anyway. Meee-ow!

Mr. Snitch said...

"Althouse will default to her standard line of bullshit — claiming that her serious points are not being addressed and her opponents have devolved into personal attacks."

"Damn that Althouse is a bitch." "I do hope we can somehow “get” Althouse."


Yeah, how could Ann make THAT flimsy claim stick.

Steven Brett said...

Prof. Althouse is what I generally consider moderate: a bit leftish on some things, a bit rightish on others, and never (at least what I have read) really extreme. And while I don't claim anything about the Right being better than the Left in arguing in general, the poster above was right when he said that the "Left" seems to be much more vitriolic when commenting on the Prof's blog -- perhaps because the feverishly want to prove her to be Karl Rove in drag, or something.

But they risk making a self-fulfilling prophecy. If their complaints stay shrill, nasty, and personal, they'll drive her further to the right -- and then feel the satisfaction, I am sure, of thinking that they were right about her all along, when they are in reality (at least potentially) driving her away from them and into the "enemy" camp.

Lieberman, anyone?

amba said...

Comment also posted at Althouse:

Those people are so disgusting and pathetic, I wouldn't give them the time of day.

And the way they go on darkly as if Ann were Trotsky and they were Stalin! "The language of totalitarianism" indeed!

This is the first moment in my life that I've ever even considered joining the Republican party . . . because those are Democrats.

But then, I live to see the Dem party die like the Whigs did, and be replaced by something vital. This is the shrieking of the undead.

Theo Boehm said...

amba, you're on to something.

The following are a couple of excerpts from a comment I was going to leave on one of the "Clinton-boob" threads at Althouse, but didn't post it before she closed the comments.

"...My wife and I are both cultural Democrats, whose families have mostly voted Democratic for well over 100 years. I can trace my family's adherence to the Democratic Party literally to the days of Andrew Jackson (we did have a prominent Whig in there at that time, but we all make mistakes). So I think my Democratic bona fides have been in good shape, at least up until now...."

After making a few other points and saying some nice things about Hillary Clinton, I conclude:

"...The more that Sen. Clinton's party, my old party, the Democratic Party, falls into the hands of extremist ideologues, the more likely it is that I, and the many moderates who have similar opinions, will be tempted to pull that lever against it and its candidates. I do not like this one little bit. But if the Netroots types and Kos Kidz want to show me the political door and say, "Good riddance," I will be happy to oblige them."

Now I know what a Trotskyite felt like. My only question is, Has anyone seen Stalin?

the Rising Jurist said...

These "feminists" keep talking about how young Jessica is--rather a joke--given she is in her late twenties and should quit acting like an ass--I know 10 year olds with more sense and character than this woman seems to have.

Lord, isn't that the truth. I spent the better part of a day arguing with a whole cadre of those hateful women (and the occasional male curiosity). What a waste of time.

Anonymous said...

Folks, it's about links. Jessica was just a tool.

Glenn links to Ann links to Helen links to Freeman. People comment adding nothing new, just hoping you will click on their blog. I suspect looking at your picture there is a reason of all the comments, Glenn linked to you. (young woman blogger expressing supportive views, the anti Jessica )

In the long run, if everyone's in bed together like this, no new dialogue is stimulated or nothing new revealed. But that never really was the point. I suspect someday soon we will see some of these bigger bloggers turn on each other, when it becomes more profitable to do so. Right now, if you want links, it doesn't take too much to know what to say to get them.

Good luck FH.

Anonymous said...

Plus, I'd bet dimes to donuts that some of the commenters are not who they represent themselves as. It's a game -- be outrageous and wear a disguise. Then cackle with glee when your remarks are attributed to "the left". If anyone questions, oohhh it's that evil Karl Rove.

Except it's true the administration has been caught before "manufacturing" news. Not saying you're on the payroll, but don't sell your independence and ability to think for yourself too cheaply FH unless the PayPal numbers are paying off well this week for some reason. Don't you have a baby on the way and all?
;-)

LoafingOaf said...

Plus, I'd bet dimes to donuts that some of the commenters are not who they represent themselves as. It's a game -- be outrageous and wear a disguise. Then cackle with glee when your remarks are attributed to "the left".

FireDogLake are heavy censors on their comments section. They pretty much delete anything that even smells of dissent. Thus, the comments that are there are representative of their community.

They delete even thoughful messages from lefties like this:

http://bintalshamsa.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-firedoglake-is-no-innocent-party.html

LoafingOaf said...

Glenn links to Ann links to Helen links to Freeman.

I'm glad! Instapundit is very good about bringing interesting blogs to people's attention. This Freeman blog looks good and I've already added it to my fave places. :)

Anonymous said...

Anon -

There are many facets to a story. This post at FH offers something different on the aftermath of this story than I had seen anywhere else. Different, interesting and revealing of the other side of the blogosphere and their readers.

So what's the problem?

Or are you just looking for something to fault here for some strange reason?

David said...

The above comment should be attributed to me - the one that begins "Anon" - I don't know why blogger didn't put my name at the top of the post.

dubiousraves said...

Freeman wrote: Except that Ann didn't go after Jessica's boobs, but hey, what can you do? Reading comprehension is down, isn't it?

Uh, maybe you need to bone up on your own reading comprehension. This is what Althouse wrote in a followup post:

'Sooooo... apparently, Jessica writes one of those blogs that are all about using breasts for extra attention. Then, when she goes to meet Clinton, she wears a tight knit top that draws attention to her breasts and stands right in front of him and positions herself to make her breasts as obvious as possible?'

So Feministing becomes, in Althouse's blather, a blog that is all about using breasts for extra attention. Never mind that it's routine for blogs of all stripes to feature models (with breasts) selling T-shirts. The actual purpose or content of the blog is never discussed, and Jessica is simply reduced to a silly chick with nice tits who thinks she's a feminist.

That's Althouse for ya, and I can totally see why you identify with her.

Freeman Hunt said...

Not saying you're on the payroll, but don't sell your independence and ability to think for yourself too cheaply FH unless the PayPal numbers are paying off well this week for some reason.

Don't sell yourself cheaply unless you're already making a lot of money? That's interesting advice.

Freeman Hunt said...

This is what Althouse wrote in a followup post:

Yes, in a followup. You need to read that in context. Althouse was pointing out the irony of Jessica trying to make things about her looks, decrying that things were about her looks, and then having a blog that played greatly on her looks to garner traffic.

I've looked in greater detail at Jessica's content, and I think there's lot of strong content there. (Not the type of news that I'm particularly interested in, but for those who are interested in it, I think it's well chosen and well done.) But it's sort of silly to act like she's not using titillation in certain instances. If the more nuanced instances don't stick out to you, try something a little more obvious from her Flickr photoset.

Freeman Hunt said...

having a blog that played greatly on her looks

I just looked back at this and would like to note that this statement is not entirely accurate. Her blog doesn't play on her looks in particular, but on women's bodies in general.

Fenrisulven said...

These "feminists" keep talking about how young Jessica is--rather a joke--given she is in her late twenties

Esp considering they argued that Monica was an adult.

dubiousraves said...

Freeman: I just looked back at this and would like to note that this statement is not entirely accurate. Her blog doesn't play on her looks in particular, but on women's bodies in general.
-----------------

Thanks for pointing out her photo log. The alternate photos of the shoot with Clinton only make Althouse's original post even more ridiculous. Jessica is quite demur in the others, and only looks a bit more perky in the one Althouse picked.

As for Feministing, glad you like the site. I always find it pretty compelling, and in no way would I say they rely on 'titillation.' They are quite honest and open about their sexuality, which is refreshing, although probably not to prudes.

Althouse is just a sad, spiteful hack with a university paycheck.

Freeman Hunt said...

The alternate photos of the shoot with Clinton only make Althouse's original post even more ridiculous.

Explain. Are you saying that Althouse would only be correct if Jessica and another girl had been snuggling and wearing "I don't fuck Republicans" tank tops in the photo with Clinton?

They are quite honest and open about their sexuality, which is refreshing

Refreshing? That would imply that society and popular culture are extremely closed off to sexuality. I would argue that the opposite is true, and that flaunting one's sexuality is generally tired and boring.

Althouse is just a sad, spiteful hack with a university paycheck.

I've been reading Althouse for a very long time. Your comment is entirely baseless. Why did you write it?

Freeman Hunt said...

I see that you were referring to the other Clinton pics, not the photostream.

You're still missing the point. The focus isn't on the picture. Jessica made it about the picture. It's about Clinton and feminism.

dubiousraves said...

Althouse's focus was totally on the picture, and then she made it explicitely about breasts, so I wish you'd stop trying to fudge the issue. The Clinton/feminism thing was something she brought up as an afterthought, probably as a half-assed way of bringing a little more heft to her argument.

Sorry, but there is not conflict between Clinton and feminism, unless you think that adultery is anti-feminist, as opposed to just bad behavior. Clinton's support of reproductive rights and his funding of world health organizations says a lot more about his commitment to women than his personal behavior does, anyway.

So George Bush doesn't cheat on his wife (as far as we know), but his policies do harm to women around the world.

Re Althouse: sorry if you think my comment is baseless, but I'd say this recent go'round on the Jessica pic pretty much sums her up as a trite, condescending and anti-woman commentator. If you want more evidence, consider the issue which first brought me to her attention: her ignorant, snarky NY Times op-ed on the recent FISA case decision.

Interestingly, that decision was rendered by a female judge. Recently Althouse has blogged silliness about a couple of other women, too: the turkish writer and woman who got the jewels in a divorce. I'd say all this, plus her snot-nose take on the Jessica/Clinton photo, suggests Althouse doesn't like women much. Maybe she's a guy's gal.

Freeman Hunt said...

The Clinton/feminism thing was something she brought up as an afterthought,

I think you need to reread both of her posts.

Sorry, but there is not conflict between Clinton and feminism, unless you think that adultery is anti-feminist

Sexual harassment isn't a feminist issue? Tarring women as bimbos and stalkers when they come forward is not a feminist issue? What brand of feminism do you ascribe to?

So George Bush doesn't cheat on his wife (as far as we know), but his policies do harm to women around the world.

Policies such as...?

her ignorant, snarky NY Times op-ed on the recent FISA case decision.

On what basis do you call it ignorant? A very large number of other legal scholars appear to concur with Ann's opinion.

dubiousraves said...

I have reread her posts.

No sexual harassment was ever proved against Clinton; the Paula Jones case was highly dubious, and Gennifer Flowers was proved to be pretty close to a stalker.

From the Center of Reproductive Rights: "On January 22, 2001, on his first business day in office (and the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing a woman's right to an abortion), President George W. Bush re-imposed the Global Gag Rule on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) population program. This policy restricts foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive USAID family planning funds from using their own, non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, lobby their own governments for abortion law reform, or even provide accurate medical counseling or referrals regarding abortion."

And let's not forget last year when Bush appointed a male veterinarian to run the Office of Women's Health.

As for Judge Taylor's eavesdropping decision, I recommend reading Glenn Greenwald's (he's also a constitutional lawyer) take on Althouse's op-ed. He makes a convincing case that she missed the main point of the decision. If you disagree with this, please point me to some commentary that shows Greenwald was wrong.

Fenrisulven said...

Glenn Greenwald, Master of Sock Puppets? Not a source to draw from if you want to maintain credibility.

Fenrisulven said...

No sexual harassment was ever proved against Clinton; the Paula Jones case was highly dubious

Uhm, Glenn - the Jones case was sexual discrimination, not harassment. Clinton was fined and required to surrender his license to pratice law because he perjured himself.

and Gennifer Flowers was proved to be pretty close to a stalker

Huh? Clinton admitted to sexual relations with Flowers, and she was never an employee of his. Sexual harassment was not the issue.

dubiousraves said...

Fenrisulven, your 'sock puppet' comment is predictable, and says more about what strings you're attached to than it does about Greenwald and the FISA case. You might consider actually showing how the 'sock puppet' is wrong in this case. I won't hold my breath.

As for Flowers, yes, exactly. There's a difference between harassment and philandering. And even if Clinton DID sexually harass Jones, which wasn't proven, you have to look at the big picture of what he's done for the feminine cause before you can make the case that feminists are hypocrites for associating with him.

Fenrisulven said...

you have to look at the big picture of what he's done for the feminine cause before you can make the case that feminists are hypocrites for associating with him.

I don't have to look far: the leftist feminist movement of the 90's abandoned their principles re sexual harassment and sexual discrimination in exchange for a veto of the partial birth abortion ban. They lost all remaining credibility, and actually went silent for several years afterwards. Americans realized that they didn't really believe in the things they werelecturing us about. The damage was lethal to their movement. NOW went from writing language into the Violence Against Women Act -> 1994 Crime Bill to hiding under a rock, licking their wounds until enough time passed to permit a revisionist history.

At least it gave manuever space for moderate and conservative feminist movements.

Glenn, any feminist who fawns over Clinton is either foolish or exploiting feminism for personal gain. Its only a few degrees removed from a Jew lauding Goering for the German economy.

Fenrisulven said...

says more about what strings you're attached to

Who am I attached too?

Its the Left who's blogosphere is a top-down heirarchy, via Kos. Funny how they always revert to form.

Its the Left who's blogosphere hold secret meetings [TownHall] to coordinate their message and smother embarassments.

Its the Left who delinks minority bloggers for "disagreeing with their betters" [waves to Jane].

Why would I take anything from Greenwald at face value? He has a history of unethical behavior that I'm sure is reflected in his work.

Anonymous said...

Don't sell yourself cheaply unless you're already making a lot of money? That's interesting advice. Interesting? Consistent, though. If you are getting a lot of money this week via paypal due to these Jessica links, you're not selling yourself cheaply.



I've looked in greater detail at Jessica's content, and I think there's lot of strong content there. (Not the type of news that I'm particularly interested in, but for those who are interested in it, I think it's well chosen and well done.) Do you think you would have been linked had you expressed these opinions earlier, and in the other comments? It contradicts the argument being made there.

But it's sort of silly to act like she's not using titillation in certain instances. If the more nuanced instances don't stick out to you, try something a little more obvious from her Flickr photoset.

You mean, go specifically looking for content that demonstrates this point of view? That is what's being done in the current argument, and everything about content you wrote above is being disputed and/or downplayed. (Where did you learn reading comprehension?)

Let me again ask this:
Someone linked to a photo, later deleted, that showed Helen Smith Reynolds displaying a tee-shirt. Her chest was clearly jutted out (the "3/4 pose" I think was used to describe Jessica at the luncheon.) The woman in the photo was clearly using her assets to sell herself.

Now if you write above you want people to go looking for instances where Jessica "titillates" on her blog to gain readers, why not acknowledge that your earlier complimenter here did exactly the same at one time?

It's not a consistent argument being advanced, it's about controversy and passing readers via links, and if you don't see this, you are being played. If you do see this and just don't want to acknowledge it, gaining links, readers and donations may make it worth your time. All the best to you. no response necessary.

Freeman Hunt said...

I'll answer the part of your comment that was coherent:

Do you think you would have been linked had you expressed these opinions earlier, and in the other comments?

Yes.

John in Nashville said...

Has everyone forgotten that the only ruling on the merits of Paula Jones's lawsuit was the District Court granting summary judgment in favor of President Clinton? That means that, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Ms. Jones and giving her the benefit of all factual inferences, she failed to show that any rational fact finder could find in her favor.

dubiousraves said...

Fenrisulvin:

If you're gonna spout wingnut boilerplate, you're really just wasting everyone's time. But I will make 2 points: 1) you still haven't given any explanation of how glenn greenwald is wrong about his opinion of althouse's op-ed. (Do you even know what I'm talking about?) 2) The taking orders from Generalissimo Kos bit was really hilarious (you don't understand liberals, do ya; they're constantly at each other's throats). You may be interested in knowing that it was the very feminists that Althouse was attacking who went after Kos last year when he ran some offensive ads and then acted like an asshole about it.

I guess the memo to them got lost in the mail, or something.

Freeman Hunt said...

Just a suggestion: If you want everyone to read and respond to something, provide a link.

Fenrisulven said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fenrisulven said...

1) you still haven't given any explanation of how glenn greenwald is wrong about his opinion of althouse's op-ed.

I've explained that I don't consider Glenn Greenwald to be a credible source, based on recent events. A blogger who resorts to sockpuppetry is likely to resort to other types of unethical mischief in his work, and I'm not going to waste my time on such. Would you buy a used car from a neighbor who cheats friends at your weekly poker night? Would you even bother to listen to his sales pitch?

2) The taking orders from Generalissimo Kos bit was really hilarious (you don't understand liberals, do ya; they're constantly at each other's throats).

I understand liberals. I use to be one back in Austin Tx. I was an activist who worked for Lt Gov Bill Hobby and Sen Chet Edwards. If Kos had existed back then, I would have been all over it.

My point was that its ironic to accuse me of "having strings" with the netroots organized the way it is, when bloggers like Jane Hamsher delink fellow bloggers that disagree with the message, when messages are coordinated in secret meetings at Townhall.

dubiousraves said...

Fenrisulvin, it's easy to just dismiss ideas you don't like with a spray of bullshit, isn't it?

This conversation has strayed far off topic.

Adios.

Fenrisulven said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fenrisulven said...

What ideas? I haven't seen the Althouse Op-ed and could care less about it. I haven't even bothered to figure out why you think Glenn Greenwald's response is relevant to this thread.

Ah, here it is: you believe Althouse wrote an ignorant snarky article re the FISA decision, and you believe Greenwald proves she missed the point.

Wow. Thats what you're pouting about? And they said the Left was out of "ideas". Look, if its that imprortant to you, provide a link to both articles and I'll respond.

This conversation has strayed far off topic. Adios.

Ha. You're the one who brought up FISA. Likely because you needed to dodge some point Hunt made re the hypocrisy of the feminist Left.

Anonymous said...

Just a suggestion: If you want everyone to read and respond to something, provide a link.

I'll answer the part of your comment that was coherent




Apologies. Here is the link I was referring to when I wrote this:


"Someone linked to a photo, later deleted, that showed Helen Smith Reynolds displaying a tee-shirt. Her chest was clearly jutted out (the "3/4 pose" I think was used to describe Jessica at the luncheon.) The woman in the photo was clearly using her assets to sell herself.

Now if you write above you want people to go looking for instances where Jessica "titillates" on her blog to gain readers, why not acknowledge that your earlier complimenter here did exactly the same at one time?"

Here is the link again, in case the above doesn't work: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/013831.php


My question is: isn't it a bit inconsistent to chastise a female blogger for having material like this on her site -- posing and selling shirts -- when others have done exactly the same thing?

Why is it ok for Helen and Glenn, but not Jessica? Surely no one, as you said earlier above, is saying Jessica's blog is contentless, so why can't anyone answer my question straight on? Instead, they delete the link or the photo ("this isn't about Helen.")

But it's the same exact thing. Maybe because Helen doesn't call herself a feminist? Because she's a married woman? I don't see the difference. You can delete too, but I wish someone could point out where these two situations are different.

Just read your RCIA post. Welcome to the community, and don't be afraid to ask -- and answer -- honest questions.

Freeman Hunt said...

When I asked for the link I was referring to dubiousraves who keeps insisting that everyone read an old Glenn Greenwald (of all people) post. But thanks for being responsive. :)

The reason that Jessica's material is somewhat relevant and Helen's is not is that (1) Helen hasn't been hypocritical and (2) Helen herself has posted that she doesn't care what Jessica looked like in the picture, only that she was in a picture with Bill Clinton:

Seriously people, the breast thing is getting really dull--I do not give a damn if women want to put their breasts all over the internet--unless they have a political agenda that is hypocritical. As you can see, the t-shirts I have worn on the internet are proof of how little I care if women model t-shirts etc., their tits etc.

However, when you have a political message that contradicts the wearing of these t-shirts, it is fair game to call a person out on it. I am not holding myself out as a feminist blog opposed to sexual harassment and then running out to get my picture made with Bill Clinton--if I did, I would see myself as the hypocrit I would rightly be.


See also this post which points to some content I hadn't notice when I looked at Jessica's site before. Jessica seems to have no problem demeaning other women. That is not good.

Also please note that I never commented on Jessica's appearance in either of the Althouse threads.

The issue isn't about a picture or about a woman's breasts. The real issue is about the definition of feminism. What does it mean to be a feminist? Can you be a feminist but give favored people a pass on anti-feminist behavior? Can you be a feminist and demean other women?

But just to get back to the main post for a minute, what do you think about the nutty people posting about "getting" Althouse in the firedoglake thread? I found that really odd and creepy.

As for RCIA, thanks for the welcome. I'm really enjoying it and learning a lot. :)

Anonymous said...

Thank YOU. Good answer, and I hadn't seen those links re. Helen because I don't read her.

I like Althouse, though I disagree sometimes with what she writes. I hated that she was attacked for her age or looks, and "getting" her is creepy.

Again, thanks for the thoughtful response!