t. comfyshoes

HF, I think I love you.


What I think you are missing is that Althouse and her ilk not only think women can only be about their breasts or their lack of them, they also think that irregardless of breasts, women are not worthy of respect with agency and ideas and dignity and legitimate concerns. The jury is still out as to whether they are really human.


Happy-- Althouse's ORIGINAL issue was the bloggers fawning over Clinton, and how pathetic she found it. You can find that post here:


Althouse NEVER ever mentioned Velenti until Velenti herself inserted herself into the conversation after some commenters (NOT Althouse) made cracks about "that intern in the front."

Please forgive me that the following will take me over the 250 word limit, but I think it's important to read some things Althouse herself said in comments to her own post along the way. I didn't agree with Althouse that Velenti was being provocative in the subject photograph, but I think now you're trying to take advantage and portraying Althouse as something she's not.


ALTHOUSE: Go back and compare the original post, which focused on my topic. Jessica showed up in the comments and essentially demanded that we focus on her. I then wrote this post to do that. In writing it, I checked out her blog and was floored by the hypocrisy. The whole look at my breasts/don't look at my breasts business is a big laugh in my opinion. When I laughed a lot of people got mad. But I'm still laughing, now not just at her but at all of you folks who participated in this bogus protection of her. She sought attention and she's plainly a hypocrite. I pointed that out. Deal with it. Look at her blog. Come on, man, it's a joke. You have a brain. Don't be a fool.


ALTHOUSE: I can see what you and others are doing. You're setting up a smokescreen and ignoring the real issue. It doesn't matter how many times you try to change the subject, the issue for me is Clinton and the embarrassing fawning of these bloggers. I'm completely unimpressed by everyone who fails to face the issue head on. I've asked you folks to address my concern again and again, and you just keep showing me that you won't, which has come to mean to me that you can't.


ALTHOUSE: I was never against Monica Lewinsky, and I don't like the way she was vilified. I don't like the way Paula Jones was treated either. A lot of that was sexist, portraying women as nutty and slutty (as had been done to Anita Hill before). I had a problem with Clinton and what he was doing to the progress that had been made about sexual harassment (though I signed the lawprof letter against impeachment). And I subsequently had a problem with feminists who explained away the problem. Suddenly, everything people "got" back at the time of Anita Hill and the Thomas confirmation was forgotten, and the political bias built into feminism became glaringly apparent. This is something I'm going to keep holding people accountable for, even if they try to vilify me. And those who won't face up to this problem and prefer instead to call me names are phony feminists in my book. So, yeah, I side with Monica.

The Happy Feminist

Not buying.

Jessica was not drawing attention to herself. She was commenting on the inappropriate attention being paid to her, based on her supposed "hot intern" look, in the comments thread. Those comments may have been written by people other than Althouse, but as soon as Jessica left her (rather mild) comment, Althouse pissed all over her for how she looked in the photograph. Then Althouse started talking about breastblogging. (Also Althouse arguably precipitated the sexual assessment of Valenti by referring obliquely to the "random" array of people in the photo.)

If Althouse wants to say that it's foolish for bloggers to be uncritically thrilled to meet President Clinton, fine. But there is no basis to bring Jessica's tits into it.

And from your quotation of Althouse above:

The whole look at my breasts/don't look at my breasts business is a big laugh in my opinion.

Yep. She's missing the point of feminism and Feministing.


Happy-- I'm not arguing that Althouse is correct either about Valenti's photograph or the boob-girls on Valenti's blog (however, the boob-girls are a closer call). It was this statement by you in this post that I think is over-the-top: "In her [Althouse's] world, your breasts ARE who you are. If your breasts appear at an official function, then your whole reason for being there must be your breasts." Anyone who's read Althouse enough knows that's complete hooey. Not even close.

The Happy Feminist

I'll confess I am not a regular Althouse reader. But the sentiment I described sure is what she expressed in her comments about boobgate.


Though I'm no fan fo Althouse, I'd like ot point that, IMO, the fact that the mudflaps are being used ironically in support of feminism does not preclude them being SIMULTANEOUSLY used to draw in male readers.

That is, in fact, a major feature of irony--when we do something ironically, we enjoy the benefits of the activity while we mock it.

The Happy Feminist

Really? I don't know. To me that sounds like a kind of faux irony.

I can't speak to what exactly the bloggers at Feministing may have intended with their mudflaps. Another possibility is that the mudflaps DO draw in male readers without their having been intended for that purpose.

Either way, the problem is that Althouse takes the mudflaps literally and sees them (and any other sexuality expressed at Feministing) as invalidating and overshadowing every other aspect of the blog. That's where she goes wrong.

The Happy Feminist

Although it wasn't my intent, I note that this post with the term "breastblogging" in the title has inspired comment from a male reader I haven't heard from before! Maybe this breastblogging shtick really works! :)


You know, somehow i think that horny boyz can probably find something a bit more explicit than a couple of mudflaps, sarcastically waving the finger or otherwise, here on the Internets, were that what they were after.

The comments to this entry are closed.