Althouse wouldn't know "real feminism" if it hit her in the tits...

It was quite a "bra-ha-ha", wasn't it? I think it might have descended into a "donnybroob."

...they're my puns and I won't apologize for them.

I only just figured out tonight how bad this had got for you. I read this morning your post, but woaah, I had no idea just how widespread the outrage was. I have been following this blog for a few months now and I have liked you long before I saw the shape of your breasts. But that is probably because I come here to hear what you have to say, think or feel about issues, not to see what physical position you are in..but what position you take on politics, events or issues of our time. I am really sorry that others have different objectives.

What Althouse did was silly, juvenile, sexist and downright mean.

Don't you worry about that.

p.s.: yes, please make the t-shirt

If you made that t-shirt I would wear it.
Althouse=a major waste of space. I visit everyday & have to say that Feministing is more awesome than anything that sad-sack could create.
You rock, Jessica!

That shirt almost exists already: http://www.cafepress.com/internetbst.8406485

Wow! I am stunned by the ridiculous attacks on your person based on appearance (despite protests to the contrary). However, it does prove that your work at feministing is worthwhile. Otherwise, these backwards bloggers would not bother to make weak attempts to reduce you to your clothing and mammary glands. Keep up the wonderful work and know it is appreciated.

I'm really sorry that these assholes did this. It is absolutely infuriating to be judged by your looks when it is far from being appropriate. They are just jealous because you have made an impact. I have learned more about womens' rights and why these issues effect me from this blog (and the blogroll) then I otherwise would have. Thank you so much for everything that you do and keep it up.

Jessica, you and the other wonderful women here at feministing provide daily doses of sanity and inspiration in an otherwise insane world.

I'm with Tom. I'd be happy to pose with Bill Clinton, but abosolutely honored to pose with Jessica Valenti.

As for Ann Althouse, if asked to pose in a picture with her I'd slyly give the camera the finger, POW style.

And you should make the T-shirt, I'd start blogging just so I could legitimately wear it.

As others have said, it's tough to take the reactions from Althouse, Dr. Helen and others as anything other than pure, unadulterated jealousy or some kind of generalized sexual panic. I've also often noticed that among 'wingers, there's a very high degree of correlation between someone's personal irrelevance and how angry they are at big, bad meanie liberals.

The commenters at Ann's and Helen's places, however, are bona fide sociopaths, for the most part. The political right truly is a bizarre alternate universe, in which "yeah, I'd rape her" is a perfectly reasonable thing to say in public. It's like that episode of Futurama, only without all teh funny.

Basically, I don't understand why being a young, intelligent, successful and, dare I say it, attractive person of the female persuasion gets these people so hot and bothered. It's not like young, intelligent, successful and attractive women are so much of a rarity in this country. Judging from Althouse's reaction, you'd think that there were highly organized packs of young, intelligent, successful and attractive women roaming the nation's cities beating up pensioners and slashing tires on parked cars.

Quoting myself:

The political right truly is a bizarre alternate universe, in which "yeah, I'd rape her" is a perfectly reasonable thing to say in public.

Or, I should add, anywhere else, for that matter.

I wouldn't make that tee shirt, Jessica.

Today was Governor Ann Richard's funeral. President Clinton gave a pretty touching eulogy. Governor Richards did much to advance the cause of women and minorities in Texas and she could manage to put a politician in his place with wit and grace. She could hold her own with anyone -- a feminist par excellence.

A stark contrast to the blogosphere this weekend --whose collective maturity level has hit a nadir. Whether it's about discussing your breasts or discussing who was invited to where, it's been pretty dispiriting to see well-educated men and women demeaned to the level of high schoolers. There's still a long way to go if we're all to be taken seriously, not just young women.

Professor Althouse and Dr Reynolds have been exposed as hypocritical (and you know you've succeeded with Althouse when she stops wanting to argue with you passive-aggressively) and that should be enough now.

Because quite frankly, you have bigger causes to fight for and better slogans to craft.

And at the very least you got a whole host of new readers for your trouble.

Totally agreed with the poster above. I'm beyond addicted to this site; I must look at it like every 2 hours. Jessica, you and the rest of the bloggers here do amazing work and have some great accomplishments under your belts, something Althouse clearly takes issue with. Stand strong and know we've all got your back....since you know, if we didn't, your leaning might accentuate your chest too much. Just kidding - keep up the great work!

that "post above" being melissa's, of course

I think what amazes me the most about this, antifeminist vitriol aside, is the sheer weirdness factor--that you were wearing clothes that showed absolutely no chest of any kind, much less cleavage, that was not sleeveless, that was not short, that was not diaphanous in any way--something you could wear to an audience with the Pope--and Althouse still said you were too provocative.

I have attended academic lectures hosted by people wearing substantially less clothing than that, and I would not call it inappropriate or provocative. Hell, I had a polite conversation earlier this week with a young woman who breastfed her baby in front of me.

What kind of planet are we living on where the opinions of Althouse and company actually matter?

That woman has serious problems, and the fact that people like that feel free to go around sucking all of the joy and spontaneity out of life for the rest of us, teaching liberal women to jitter and stutter and apologize for breathing, depresses me.

I'm glad you're not taking her criticism seriously anymore. It doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Cheers,

TH

Well said, and the shirt would be hilarious.

Well, I thought I was banned from Outhouse, but apparently she'd just closed the thread. So I made this contribution to her latest post, and I hope that will be the last of my involvement in all of this:

Althouse, she has breasts. That is not the same thing as calling attention to her breasts. She could have worn what she wore to an audience with the Pope.

I would say shame on you for your ridiculous prudishness, but to be honest I kind of pity you. People like you--who suck all the joy out of the room as soon as they come in, snapping at people for wearing the wrong shoes or eating too many of the appetizers or pronouncing "je ne sais quoi" incorrectly--are probably even more insufferable to themselves than they are to the rest of us. No wonder you traffic in hate. It's all you know!

Althouse has moved on from hate against young women to hate against Muslims. If she's following the normal right-wing hate calendar (and I don't know her well enough to know whether or not she uses it), she'll be required to cycle through gays, atheists, the ACLU, "thugs" (i.e. young low-income black men), "welfare queens" (i.e. young low-income black women), and undocumented immigrants before she gets around to uppity young women again, so I'd imagine you're safe for a while.

Cheers,

TH

"uppity young women" --> "uppity young feminists"

These boobs are made for blogging,
And that's just what they'll do,
And one of these days these boobs
Will blog all over you . . .
Ready, boobs? Start blogging . . .

I read the comment threads on Althouse's site and decided that it'd be pointless to add to that thread.

But I did want to say, Jessica, that you handled yourself well and Feministing is now on my daily must-read list.

Thank you.

again, it's was never what althouse really cared about, but here's one reason feminists would meet with bill clinton:
http://keyetv.com/topstories/local_story_259171832.html

For heavens sake, it was just a bloody photo. No wonder the world is in such a state when so-called intellectuals (Law Prof. my arse), stoop to such hebetudinous crap. What do you expect from a pig but a grunt.

And as for Clinton comments: taken a look at who is in charge lately?

There are so many more links...
Just to .... name a ... few ... more. ...

Your support on this one was huge.

Well, good thing I posted my comment here--Outhouse deleted it. Looks as if that's what she did last time, too.

Cheers,

TH

P.S. Who thinks I should make a "These boobs are made for blogging" shirt?

It's a good idea, but the joke will be lost on people who aren't familiar with the latest blogospheric sexist stupidity.

"uppity young women" --> "uppity young feminists"

No, they hate uppity young women in general; feminism is just an aggravating factor.

Jessica I saw your comment over at Scotts about being upset. I am so sorry. I've been a proud feminist for 40 years. I think it is wonderful that you young women are picking up the torch and doing the heavy lifting. You have no idea how much I admire you for your courage in facing down the slime you just received from the right and just being a feminist in todays society.

One of the basic tenets of feminism IMO is the freedom for women to be who they are, boobs and all. And I can assure you if I still had perky boobs I wouldn't be a bit ashamed of them for any reason. I'm delighted that you have given the middle finger salute to all the RW Eagle forum reading people at that awful site.

And BTW I just wanted to add that I totally disagree with the poster above. Ann Richards would be one of the first women to buy a t-shirt that said "these boobs are made for blogging" Ann was a lusty and often profane gal and would undoubtedly have had a good laugh at the phony BS at Althouse.

Keep fighting the good fight, Jessica. Althouse behaved inexcusably.

StealthBadger had a post about this clusterfuck of pseudofeminist self-loathing-masquerading-as-she-bitch-dominance-attempts. Okay, not in so many words, but you get the idea.

Sounds to me like the usual gulf of longing and envy betwixt the young and fertile and the old and bitter, if I were that shallow.

Weren't these supposed to be "liberal" bloggers? Maybe I'm confused, but I thought that we had gotten over the body-image pettiness AGES ago...

Granted, the current Reagan-induced anti-feminist backlash has snowballed on steroids in the past 10 years, and we are pretty much right back to the "chattel/meat" assignment of women's value. BUT --- since when are feminists (old school or otherwise) supposed to be the ones REDUCING WOMEN TO BODY PARTS?!?!?

For fuck's sake, it's not like anybody was doing "Bloggers Gone Wild"!!!

Aside from the obvious offenses, this seems like a supreme case of judgemental narcissism masquerading as feminism.

People dying all over the fucking planet, our government committing mass murders every second of every day, this entire country being bankrupted by the richest 1% of silver-spoon cunts, and these bloggers have nothing better to talk about than your tits?!?!? (no offense intended, obviously) I'm sure that they're nice tits and all, but they're not the center of the fucking universe, and it's nice to see where people's priorities truly lie.

I don't even know what to say. It just sucks that a stupid bunch of idiots have really screwed around with the amazing feeling of being invited to have lunch and talk policy with Bill Clinton.

I am envious of that opportunity and really respect the writing and thinking that got you there.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I can't believe Ann said this...

Her blog uses breasts to attract traffic very openly, and she is clearly calling attention to her chest, right under the nose of the ex-President.

I don't come for the boobies... guess she can "claim" anything she wants.

That's what gets me. Googling "sybian" gets 2.4 million matches and she thinks a fully clothed woman standing at a 3/4 angle will guarantee traffic from the pervs?

Cheers,

TH

So sorry you got caught into the middle of this. Such is the lot for people who attract the attention of twits.

It’s about how young women are routinely reminded that they’re only good for one thing—consumption.

This bizarre episode had to do with her stats. She's a blog whore who pimped a younger, more attractive woman. She climbed from 140,000 to 300,000 hits a month from Sept 2004 to Sept 2005. This month has been all-time low from Sept 2005 to Sept 2006, 210,000, nowhere near the 300,000 of last September. Wow! Look what Jessica did for her site this month.

Her site is losing influence and Feministing is gaining influence. Can we say anti-feminist? Can we say loser? If this is about feminism, it's like she's never heard of the influential third-wave pop culture feminist magazine Bust whose tagline is BUST: For women who have something to get off their chests. I'm sure many of her students have read it and it saved my psyche in the 90s. Hello!

Ann Althouse is not a feminist; she's a bully. And when she's not dealing with your breasts or getting all aflutter over imaginary etiquette, she's one of those odd ducks who likes to claim she's promoting feminism by supporting measures that actually restrict women's rights.

I'm very disappointed in her, regardless, for going after you thus. 'Cause a) it's bullshit and b) even if it weren't bullshit, it's small potatoes.

Weren't these supposed to be "liberal" bloggers? Maybe I'm confused, but I thought that we had gotten over the body-image pettiness AGES ago...

Ann Althouse is as liberal and as feminist as I am a cucumber.

This month has been all-time low from Sept 2005 to Sept 2006, 210,000, nowhere near the 300,000 of last September.

The month is only half over. The shitstorm has caused her traffic to spike; by the end of the month she'll easily top 300,000.

These entries reminded me of a friend who had been sexually harassed - the man told her that she asked for it because she was wearing provocative clothes. Those clothes being a turtleneck, a long skirt and boots - she was literally covered from chin to toe. And yet in his mind's eye, she "enticed" him to violate her.

What Altmann did was reprehensible, she provoked her readers to objectify and denigrate a woman. I don't care if it's a fellow blogger or not, it was sick and twisted considering that she calls herself a feminist. Feminism is not ripping away any and all things that makes us women in order to "try" to be like men, it's embracing what makes us DIFFERENT, being confident in who you are, and commanding respect because you deserve it. That's when you're taken seriously, because no matter what you're doing, - you're not playing a role, you are who you are.

Say what you will about Clinton's escapades, but in a room of mixed political affiliations, his words on the state of the world would carry more weight than the current President.

140,000 hits per month? Dear God. I assumed she was getting more hits than Feministing, not fewer.

And Althouse is not a feminist. She's an over-the-top right-winger who has blogged for Instapundit, among other things. Her feminist concerns extend only to using the word "feminism" to uphold the right-wing agenda.

Cheers,

TH

140,000 hits per month? Dear God. I assumed she was getting more hits than Feministing, not fewer.

That was two years ago. Now she gets about 300,000 per month, which is a little more than Feministing.

In light of these recent developments I gave Lindsay Beyerstein a snappy, conservative makeoever; now I figure I should do the same for you, Jessica, as you are the original offender. (Victim = offender; n'est-ce pas?) So here you go. Hope you like it. Apparently El Presidente does. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to get one of his signature shoulder rubs.

Funny, but the ugly old shrew Ann Althouse (think that may be why she has a problem with a young cutie like you?) fails to mention Redd Hedd is turned just as you are. Are redheads invisible to her? Check this link out for a little fun http://risinghegemonxxx.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_risinghegemonxxx_archive.html

I noticed an interesting connection last night when I was reading comments on this subject (e.g. your boobs) on Pandagon - a few posts farther down was the breastfeeding brouhaha of last week. Two views of the same problem, really; how on earth could we expect anyone here to take breastfeeding seriously and not as a perverted sexual thing when simply having breasts at all, even properly covered, is taken as a perverted sexual thing??

P.S. Who thinks I should make a "These boobs are made for blogging" shirt?

Only if you include strategically-placed photos of Dr. Helen and Althouse, the true mindless boobs of the blogging world. Otherwise, you shouldn't waste any more of your energy on those self-righteous, logically-challenged bozos.

my first time here, if it wasn't for their stupid, ridiculous comments i may not have wound up here. If it wasn't the boobs it would have been how you part your hair, the colors you chose to wear. "boobs for blogging" great idea

It's a real shame that the very nice picture of Bill & the Bloggers has been--at least temporarily--ruined for you. I hope that after this nonsense passes you'll be able to look at it again and smile.

jp, it'll probably be hard. I was telling Jessica a couple of nights ago about my high school graduation portrait--Monday, I had my first formal portrait in 11 years--and how I went from loving it to hating it because of the comments I received. (As many of y'all know, I was born with a craniofacial anomaly. Not Brian Pepper territory or anything, but enough to affect my self-image.) People behave like killjoys because it's an effective way to, well, kill joy.

I am still fiercely angry at a mean little old lady at my old Episcopal church who verbally abused a young woman for wearing a halter. It's amazing how easy it is to staple a scarlet "A" on even the strongest women, and hurt them deeply with it.

What gets me most of all is that this isn't even anything Jessica can fix. It's not like Althouse said "Oh, you're showing too much skin"; she was criticizing Jessica for the way she stood.

We live on a very nasty planet, and it's made nastier by people like Althouse. I just feel sorry for any kids who might be in her life, who are liable to be scarred for life by this kind of soul-crushing behavior.

Cheers,

TH

May I add that there is a legitimate and productive and respectful discussion we all could have all been having about Bill Clinton and the challenges he poses to feminists, one that Althouse has deprived us of by turning all of this into a cruel and ridiculous personal attack on Jessica.

That's another thing the Althouse types do. They kill all meaningful conversation within 100 yards.

Cheers,

TH

Jessica, I would frame that photo and display it proudly. You got to meet with a former President!

I don't think many realize how significant and achievement that is.

I agree with TH on one more point....President Clinton does create somewhat of a conundrum when it comes to feminism, but for you to not meet with him because of that would of been a wasted opportunity and a decision based on single issue politics.

May I add that there is a legitimate and productive and respectful discussion we all could have all been having... They kill all meaningful conversation within 100 yards.

To be fair, meaningful conversation was killed by both sides. There were so many serious issue ignored by both camps. And that's the real loss here.

I doubt that Althouse and Feministing shared much, if any, readership before this started. Suddenly, both Ann and Jessica had a new group to talk to. Ann could have really pushed the serious questions, but instead matched every earnest inquiry with pandering nods to her regulars. And what's worse, Jessica had an opportunity to make a real stand for modern feminism but simply didn't rise to the challenge.

You ladies are all well-educated and clearly have strong thoughts on these things. Take advantage of the traffic and post some serious feminist thought. Maybe you'll win some converts.

"To be fair, meaningful conversation was killed by both sides. There were so many serious issue ignored by both camps. And that's the real loss here."

tRJ, but you are way off base. Attacking a woman simply for how she stands for a picture, for heaven's sake, is not a trivial issue. It's repugnant and misogynistic behavior.

Althouse was using a shaming device -- focusing on Jessica's breasts -- to trivialize her contributions and presence in the meeting. Such behavior reinforces all the negative societal messages women get about our bodies, that teach us to hate ourselves and keep us from achieving our potential. It was absolutely right to respond to have behavior with outrage.

-l.

I'd wear that t-shirt.

YES, I absolutely want that t-shirt!

As a blogger who has shamelessly flaunted my own breasts on my site, I definitely should get that shirt.

I'm disappointed that Althouse didn't come after me: I was topless in that picture!

Now me, I figure that Clinton getting caught taking a peek at an attractive lady (and indeed you are) wouldn't be a big deal, except that it brings up memories of OTHER THINGS. Those OTHER THINGS that I hope all of us wish had not happened but they did. Those OTHER THINGS that lead to criminal acts on the part of the former President.

Now if he had resigned, then Al Gore could have been elected, reelected, and would have been president during 2001. Then Albert Gore Jr. could have either been a wimp, or become a strong wartime president, as the case may be. If Albert Gore Jr. had been a strong wartime president, then he wouldn't have to be so crazy about Global Warming/Cooling/What ever. The Democrats wouldn't have to stake out a position perilously close to treason to distinguish themselves from the Republicans.

See: Actions have consequences. Clinton was responsible for the nutty trend in the Democratic party. He just didn't know it at the time, and thought he was only being immoral and trying to get away with it.

Jessica, you rule. Sorry about all of this crap. And I would LOVE one of those shirts. In fact, in the meantime, I plan to buy one of those horrible feministing boobie shirts! : ) I love the mental image of boobs hitting the keyboards, blogging away.

I am a feminist, and I have boobies.
http://flickr.com/photos/halfmad/25941520/in/set-590134/

As to semi-serious issues, I wrote a post here about what I think is Feministing's real problem of objectifying women while complaining about objectifying women. For instance, you now say this: "It’s about how young women are routinely reminded that they're only good for one thing—consumption." And yet your emblem and shirt model are both overtly hyper-sexed, not to mention the shirt model being, um, bra-less.

Now, I like reading your blog, but is this really just irony?

Ooh! How about: "have boobs, will blog" as well!

Marcus, come on now. Featuring someone wearing a shirt (that has breasts in it!) is "objectifying" women? And our ironic logo is "hypersexed?"

In all seriousness--should feminists not have breasts? When we advertise a shirt, should I bind the model's breasts down? There's nothing remotely dirty or objectifying about our logo or our ad. That's a pretty lame argument.

And btw, if you can tell our model (who just happens to be a friend of mine) is braless, then maybe it's you who has the boob obsesstion...just saying.

Well, I'm a feminist, too, and I don't have boobies--but I really like looking at them. I also don't believe it's a crime to appreciate the beauty of people in spirit, mind, and yes, boobies. Jessica, you have beauty in all three (I mean four) areas and for that (them) I thank you. The rest of the bloggers in the picture are also beautiful in many ways, not the least of which is their writing--discourse they shared with one of the most powerful minds of our time, and that's a beautiful thing. Thank you all at Feministing for the work you do!

In all seriousness--should feminists not have breasts? When we advertise a shirt, should I bind the model's breasts down?

You girls sure like saying that, as though Marcus' comments was "Bind your breasts." I would love to hear an actual argument that doesn't involve the words binding or burqa.

See, it's like this: it isn't that she, or other women featured here, have boobs. It's that the pictures focus on them. I realize it's an ad for the shirt, and is meant to focus on the design. But that happens to mean the photo is cropped so that it is a boob shot.

I mean, you have to see that! You're crying about objectification when there's a boob shot right there. It may be inadvertent or coincidental, but it's there.

tRJ, YOU see it as a boob shot because you're looking at a picture of a shirt and your first thought is BOOBS! Just because you are looking at the picture with an objectifying eye, doesn't mean the picture is a tit shot. It's not my fault you can't look at a shirt ad without making it into something dirty.

I'll repeat this once more: IT'S AN AD FOR A WOMAN'S SHIRT. So I hate to tell you, boobs will be in it. Should we have zoomed out more? Would that have been "appropriate?" Grow up, seriously.

Well, the figure of the emblem is hyper-sexed, like a barbie doll (I think this is the basis for the irony in the first place, no?) In any case, there's no question that this gets you readers. I don't want to get too serious here, but I bet you were aware of the pros and cons of using that logo. And if you considered the increased male traffic a pro rather than a con, then I'm saying that you're not being totally honest on every level.

As for the shirt model, say what you will, I can just tell you it didn't take me very long after discovering your site to say "wait a second...." And as someone who is so keenly aware of the sexualization of women, are you really saying this slipped your attention?

Again, it's not like I have a problem with any of this. As I said in my post, it just seems to me that you're somewhat of an "if you've got it, flaunt it" mindset when it comes to female sexuality. I'm not complaining; I'm just saying I'd think you'd be more light-hearted when someone comments. Basically, I don't think you should wear a burqa, but I don't think Althouse was out of line for noticing your appearance either, and then noticing that, yes, you do kind of have a lot of boobs on your site. I think many people have noticed this, and that it hasn't entirely been to your detriment.

Just because you are looking at the picture with an objectifying eye, doesn't mean the picture is a tit shot. It's not my fault you can't look at a shirt ad without making it into something dirty.

Alright, I give up. If you don't see it, you don't see it. But you know, it can't all be the fault of a man. At some point, women have to take responsibility for their contribution.

And I really am trying to have a serious dialogue here but you seem to prefer the echo chamber that existed before Friday.

Parting thought: it would do you and your cause a world of get to revisit some of these arguments once the blood has cooled and ask yourself some hard questions. I mean, you can keep dropping your bucket in the same old well, but it's clearly not very deep.

As for the shirt model, say what you will, I can just tell you it didn't take me very long after discovering your site to say "wait a second...." And as someone who is so keenly aware of the sexualization of women, are you really saying this slipped your attention?"

Admittedly I logged onto this site for the first time yesterday, but its been almost a day and a half now and I still haven't had the time to check the whole page out... There's a lot more content on this site than a shirt ad and a logo my friend...

Your getting hung up on a minor picture and the site logo says more about YOU than it says about the site or its authors.. Out of all the content on this page, those two objects are what you focused on. It wasn't the excellent interview with Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, or any of the threads discussing feminist thought that got and held your attention, it was the one photo of a woman in a tight shirt...

Course, that's what this whole thing is about, isn't it?

Well, the figure of the emblem is hyper-sexed, like a barbie doll (I think this is the basis for the irony in the first place, no?) In any case, there's no question that this gets you readers. I don't want to get too serious here, but I bet you were aware of the pros and cons of using that logo. And if you considered the increased male traffic a pro rather than a con, then I'm saying that you're not being totally honest on every level.

Sigh. This has been explained a zillion times in a lot of different places, but I'll try again. (I hope I'm not usurping Jessica's perogative. I just assume you're sick of going over this.)

The woman in the picture isn't a barbie doll. She's a mud-flap girl. You know: male truckers sometimes use mud-flaps featuring pictures of outrageously buxom women. I don't do a lot of highway driving these days, but I saw them all the time on long car trips when I was a kid.

The mud-flap girl is a symbol of objectificiation. Objectification is the idea that women (or other people) exist for the benefit of others. Our needs, our desires, our perspectives aren't important, because the needs, desires and perspectives of men are paramount. The mud-flap girl is more specifically a symbol of sexual objectification, which is something that many young women face. We are seen to be important only as objects of men's sexual desire. Because men find many of us sexually attractive, we matter. Other aspects of our beings, as well as our own sexual desires, are unimportant.

(The flipside of this, of course, is that women who men do not desire are seen as sexual non-entities and often as non-entities in general. Since we are objects, who exist only for the pleasure of men, we cease to exist in their minds when we cease to be desirable.)

The feministing logo is a mud-flap girl giving someone the finger. That is to say, she is a sexual object who is refusing to be an object. She is angrily asserting her own point of view. It's a way of saying that we, as young women, won't tolerate being objects. This is a place where we are subjects, where our needs and desires and perspective matter. You may see us as mud-flap girls, or you may not see us if you can't make us your mud-flap girls, but that's your problem. We're going to talk back to you. We aren't going to be passive objects.

I disagree with the women who run this blog about a lot of things, but I find the logo funny and totally unobjectionable.

This issue is familiar to attractive, smart feminists. I have frequently been dismissed because of my personal appearance. Dominant society wants feminists to be angry, unattractive, man-haters. What happens to that ideology when a feminist is attractive? Jessica was invited to meet Clinton because of her hard work and dedication to social justice, and I am proud of her for that. So what if she's also hot? She's the Gloria Steinem of this generation. Rock on. Lori

tRJ, Marcus, it's not a serious discussion. It's bullshit analysis in the original sense; I first used the term to describe Twisty's comments about blowjobs, but realized it fit Althouse just as well. "Cropping the image to only include the boob shot" is precisely the same level of crap as "She is less conservatively dressed than the other women in the room."

As I see it, there couldn't be much serious discussion after Althouse decided to make it about Jessica's breasts.

Sally,

That's an interesting explanation, which I appreciate. I have to say, though, that I didn't see that anywhere over at Althouse's site or in what I read here, but simply one-liners that it was irony, stupid, and that she's a mud-flap girl.

In any case, so what do you think? Do you think the bra-less shirt model is consistent with a message of "don't objectify women"?

Perhaps the point is that the problem with objectification isn't about idolizing the female figure at all, but simply in forgetting that women are more than just a figure. Is that it? I'd be interested to know. I'm not sure this is all as simple or obvious as many seem to want or think.

Your blog was called to my attention by Maha over at the Mahablog.I will now be a regular reader here.I admire you for showing grace under pressure.

I am a small framed lady who was very blessed in the chest area.Although I am nearly 40 I still have a good figure and I have encountered the shit you ran into this week since my teenage years.I hate that is is still happening to women,I hate that it has happened to you, but now that it has I think we have a chance as a society to address it.Not one more generation of women should have to put up with it.I am only sorry my generation did nothing, because it has clearly continued.

Ann did such a fine job of insulting herself in her quest to diss you.How could one take her serious after writing a post like that?She made herself into a self made joke in one easy post.And she told us all how she lacks value for women and herself.It is very sad really.And telling.I ask you all to consider that..

Jessica, I think you will be fine.Your smart,you are an outstanding writer and YES there is a place for your voice,and fuck anyone who doesn't like it.Ann is the one who we should all be concerned about..

All the women in that photo set a fine example for the rest of us.I am very proud, as a woman, of each of them.Hold your heads high ladies.And never be ashamed of being GREAT women.

There is certainly a place for your voice Jessica.It thrills me to see someone younger than myself speaking up..YOU GO GIRL!It gives me hope to know people your age are even thinking about the issues of the day..

As for the boobs, trust me if you tape them flat they will find something else to bitch about.You will be to cute, or too happy or your butt will be to nice or you'll be to smart..blah blah blah...if someone doesn't like something about you, make sure you remember it's THEIR problem, not yours.Don't schlep off to the "dress barn" to fix anns problem.

Please make the shirt...I would wear it!I will send a photo of my big boobs in it to ann just for you!

This makes me wanna thump someone, preferably althouse. I love how in her second post she omitted all of the shit that was said about you and made it look like you were responding to a perfectly innocent comment. Yeah right. Also, you should make that t-shirt, and sell it in the feministing shop. Maybe it could end up a blogosphere legend...

I am almost 50 years old. As a young woman, I was a very sexual person. I was also very smart and accomplished. It wanted to be recognized for both attributes. The sexy part was easy. The smart part was harder. I earned a PhD in a technical field, in part because, with those letters behind my name, no one could assume I was the air-head that my sexiness led some unenlighted people to assume I was.

Time progressed, kids came, the jobs became harder, and I lost interest in being seen as sexy and became one of the “invisible� middle-aged women.
Then I rediscovered my sexual side. I dress differently now, I walk differently, I like myself better, and I’m having the time of my life. Many of my professional colleagues are having a hard time with this new me. My boss, especially, can’t deal with my “having boobs� again.

Look at the other women in the Clinton photo. Some of them probably have spectacular bodies hidden under their camouflage. But they have hidden them, taken them out of the equation, because they want people to see their accomplishments and either have lost their sexual identity (or never really had a serious one) or are afraid that if they show it off, if they revel in the fact that they excel in two arenas, people will see only the sexy part. As you have discovered.

Of course you dressed to present your best self at the Clinton lunch. And, because you are a blessed and aware woman, you are both sexy and accomplished, and proud of it. Clinton is known to appreciate beautiful, intelligent women and I’d sure do my damned best to impress him (or anyone whose opinion I valued) in every possible arena. So, you dressed conservatively, as appropriate for the occasion, but in a body-conscious manner, to show that you are more than just another de-sexed, nerdy brain. Good for you! Be proud of all your accomplishments, and don’t let any sour people make you feel like you need to hide either your smart or sexy side.

To tRJ:

If you don't see it, you don't see it. But you know, it can't all be the fault of a man. At some point, women have to take responsibility for their contribution.

Actually, it can be. The picture was not intended to be a "Jessica Bares All" tit-fest the way that you (horrible) people are turning it into. She contributed to the picture because she attended the event, just as other bloggers did. She's a very skilled feminist blogger. She did not contribute to the picture because she has breasts. Would there be this much uproar if a man with breasts posed in the same position in front of the president? No.

You're making a choice to objectify her. Ann Althouse made a choice to call attention to her breasts in that picture because otherwise it would have gone completely unnoticed.

To Marcus:
People who are criticizing this picture are grasping at a ridiculously sparse amount of straws, and I can't believe that they're confused that everyone's not joining them. Jessica did not singlehandedly transform breasts into sexual objects. Women choosing to display their bodies in ways they feel comfortable is a very precise and empowering feminist act. And to make an argument that appears to have its basis in proclaiming otherwise is absolutely unfounded and borderline insane.

In any case, so what do you think? Do you think the bra-less shirt model is consistent with a message of "don't objectify women"?

I don't think the braless shirt model has anything to do with a message about objectifying women. Objectification is something that the perceiver does to the person being perceived. It isn't something we provoke by dressing a certain way. When I saw that picture, I saw it as an ad for a shirt that I might want to buy. I didn't notice that the model wasn't wearing a bra until some critic of this blog brought it up. This is a blog by, about, and mostly for young feminists. I don't think most young feminists look at that picture and see boobies. The problem here is you. You approach that picture with an assumption that women are objects, so you think it's about presenting boobs for men to ogle. But the intended response is actually "hey, I'd like to wear that shirt."

I wouldn't buy that shirt, but what I thought was "eh, I wouldn't wear that shirt," not "would you look at the tits on that one."

The mudflap and advertisement images are what Situationists called detournement in 1950s and 1960s France. Pre-existing aesthetic elements or images are altered and subverted so that rather than supporting the status quo they convey a radical or oppositionist message. Culture jammers today have subvertisements that detourn (turnabout) Nike Ads for example.

The breasts on Feministing make its readers agents not victims. Concern trolls miss the detournement, subversion and irony and think the opposite and are no different than the men who became confused when Gloria Steinem said intelligent things.

In any case, so what do you think?

I think you should pay less attention to the pictures and more to the articles, and maybe you'll figure out the answer to your questions.

I love the "Fuck you" mudflap woman. It reminds me of the "Fuck you" girl at Bitch PhD, all grown up.

Sally writes:
I didn't notice that the model wasn't wearing a bra until some critic of this blog brought it up.

Neither did I, and I think it's kind of weird that Jessica gets to be provocative for her "chest sticking out" (which is what happens when you wear a bra, duh) and the model gets to be provocative for not wearing a bra (when if she did, she would have her "chest sticking out"). I mean, talk about a catch-22. The only safe alternative, it appears, is the good old fashioned burqa.

Cheers,

TH

And may I ask when criticizing women who dress "immodestly" became an even remotely feminist thing to do? That's radical-right stuff, not radical-left stuff.

All of this talk about whether women can be "real feminists" depending on their clothing choices reminds me of something my father once said about Real Men Don't Eat Quiche. "Son," he said, "real men eat whatever the hell they want."

Cheers,

TH

It isn't something we provoke by dressing a certain way.

You're telling me Pamela Anderson doesn't provoke being objectified?

The problem here is you. You approach that picture with an assumption that women are objects...

My assumption is that nipples don't end up on a weblog on accident. Your assumptions about me, incidentally, are wrong, and wildly wrong. Even if I were a conservative, virtually all of whom disagree with you on this stuff, I hope you realize that this idea that all conservatives simply look at women as objects is completely ludicrous. I don't look at women as objects, but yes, I see a nipple when it is visible.

You may not know this, but there's actually a lot of money and effort that goes into exactly what to do with nipples on magazine covers in order to sell more magazines. Maybe that's because we're a country of perverts, but you know, then it's a country of perverts, not just the guy who happens to disagree with you.

Women choosing to display their bodies in ways they feel comfortable is a very precise and empowering feminist act.

Ok. I think the question 90% of regular guys want to know, though is this: can they do that, and then pretend they didn't?

The interesting here is that many are suggesting that women have the right to be straight forward in the sexuality and to use it in any way they want. The question Althouse had, however, is whether one can do that and then deny it. That's my question too. I apologize if you think it's inappropriate, but I would think it would be the kind of thing feminists would like to talk about.

if you see a nipple on this site, you're looking waaayy too hard. jesus, get over it already.

Marcus writes:
The interesting here is that many are suggesting that women have the right to be straight forward in the sexuality and to use it in any way they want.

That's a pretty basic human right, yes.

The question Althouse had, however, is whether one can do that and then deny it.

You're missing the bigger issue, which is that the woman is the one in a position to know "why" she did something, not you and not Althouse. And frankly, I don't think any woman should be expected to spend hours every day for four days self-analyzing to figure out why she stood at a 3/4 pose or didn't wear a blazer. I mean, give me a fucking break.

The truth is that while you get to decide when you feel seduced, women get to decide when they feel seductive. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. If you were turned on by the t-shirt photo, I guess that's okay--a little weird, but okay. It does not mean that the model was trying to turn you on. In fact, I'm pretty sure she'd rather not know that she did.

Cheers,

TH

Jessica, I have to admit that as soon as I saw his post I immediately tried to find the nipple--I am a heterosexual male, after all--and had no luck. I can't agree with Marcus' ideology, but if I ever need a good optometrist, I'll know who to call.

Cheers,

TH

Yeah Marcus I'm addicted to this site and never saw nipples in the ad. You had to bring up the fact that she was braless and I had to look real hard just now to investigate. You're looking waaaay too hard.

I wouldn’t waste space here except that I spent some time trying to register to comment on “Study says men are smarter than women.� So now that I’m registered I can’t help but comment. I first heard about this issue from Salon’s Broadsheet. So I read about the issue before seeing the picture of the bloggers and the ex-President. To get a fresh perspective, I showed the picture to my wife and asked her what she perceived might be controversial about it. The best she could do was suggest that Clinton wasn’t really present—he was PhotoShopped in. When informed that wasn’t the case, she had absolutely no idea what could be objectionable about it. I don’t know how old Ann Althouse is, but I believe my wife and I are closer in age to her than to Jessica, so please don’t attribute her views to everyone over 50.

Yes--this is definitely a weirdness-about-sexuality thing, not an age thing. Signed, another almost fifty-year-old.

-l.