In a recent post, Ann Althouse a href=”http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/09/bill-clinton-lunching-with-bloggers.html”rightly pokes fun at a picture /a of a group of left-leaning bloggers who met with and posed with Bill Clinton. Professor Althouse points out the irony of a female blogger from a href=”http://feministing.com/archives/005710.html”a “feminist” blog /astanding in front of Clinton posing in a rather provocative stance. When the blogger, Jessica, comes to protest on Professor Althouse’s blog that she is being judged for her looks (yes, she is pretty clueless), she gets this dressing down from the professor:br /br /blockquoteJessica: I’m not judging you by your looks. (Don’t flatter yourself.) I’m judging you by your apparent behavior. It’s not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about. I really don’t know why people who care about feminism don’t have any edge against Clinton for the harm he did to the cause of taking sexual harrassment seriously, and posing in front of him like that irks me, as a feminist. So don’t assume you’re the one representing feminist values here. Whatever you call your blog…./blockquotebr /br /Well, the irony to me is that the same left-leaning “feminist” types fawn over, and show support for Bill Clinton–one of the biggest gropers and sexual harrassers around–all the while shrieking that if a man tries to touch them in a bar, all bets are off and physical violence will follow. In response a href=”http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2006/09/bit-of-over-reaction.html”to my post /aabout whether or not a woman should use a violent reaction in response to being emalmost touched /emin a bar, the “feminists” came out in full force to say that a href=”http://pandagon.net/2006/09/12/please-wont-someone-think-of-the-gropers/”I was supporting gropers /awhen I said that using violence in that setting as an eminitial reaction /emwas not the best idea. br /br /But, apparently, if the man is powerful and a real sociopath–uhh, I mean charmer–these “feminists” sing a different tune. Groping, sexual harassment, and unwanted advances from such a doll (a href=”http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/we-just-had-lunch-in-nyc-with-real.html”with beautiful blue eyes/a at that!) are A-OK with them and here is the picture to prove it. You go, girls!br /br /strongGROPER’S SUPPORT GROUP/strongbr /br /a href=”http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/750/48/1600/groperssupportpng.png”img style=”cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;” src=”http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/750/48/320/groperssupportpng.png” border=”0″ alt=”" //abr /br /strongUpdate:/strong Well, I guess Jessica from the a href=”http://www.feministing.com/”Feministing blog /awho is featured in the Clinton picture above is making the rounds to various blogs to stand up for her honor. She writes:br /br /blockquoteHelen, you’re being disingenuous about my response to the Althouse. I didn’t complain about the POST judging my looks, but rather the comments in the thread doing so. Which, if you read them, are clearly completely focused on the way I looked. So please, if you’re going to post about this—at least be honest.br /br /I’m not even going to touch the fact that you think standing for a picture is “provocative.”/blockquotebr /br /My response— br / br /Jessica,br /br /I really do not care how you look in the picture — I care that you were in the picture emat all./em Really, posing with Bill Clinton as the poster boy for women’s rights? Come on….I would have been flipping him a bird for making a fool of me and my gender. br /br /If you were a gay-rights activist, would you happily pose with David Duke?br /br /Update II: Jessica offers a very reasonable response:br /br /blockquoteAnd I think that’s a completely valid argument. But then why link to a post that became all about my breasts? Don’t you think that’s beneath the conversation you’d like to have?/blockquotebr /br /My response:br /br /blockquoteThanks for offering something that can start a logical conversation. I am sorry if your looks got dragged into this, but I assume that it was the posturing of your body–that you looked so proud etc. to be with Bill Clinton etc. that led others to believe that you “approved” of his past behavior. I realize that maybe you did feel proud–that you were invited to go meet a former President–I can understand that. However, given the values you say that you are for–women’s rights, the right not to be sexually harrassed in the workplace etc., can you really say that posing with him was the right thing to do? If I was anti-war and posed with Bush, smiling the whole time with a weapon in my hand, would you not wonder about me and point out my hypocrisy? BTW, this is not the case for me–I would be fine with posing with President Bush etc. but that is another story./blockquotebr /br /strongUpdate III:/strong 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. br /br /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. br /br /Again, children, this is not about breasts–it is about the politics of “feminists” who balk at the idea that they cannot break the fingers of men who approach them in a bar and then have the gall to actually defend a group of “feminists” who hang out with Mr. Happy Hands himself. Just my observation. Now I have to get going–thanks for all the links from your angry blogs–it really helps boost my traffic!br /br /strongUpdate IV:/strong a href=”http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2006/09/we-thought-we-were-movers-and-shakers.html”The real reason lefty bloggers /awho dine with Clinton are so upset.
September 16, 2006 - 3:13 am