Jessica just seemed to be "posing" in a way that anyone would in a photo, as some of the other commenters said, turned a bit sideways to allow the people behind her to be seen, and to allow more people in the photo. She didn't exactly pull a Paris Hilton in this photo. However, Ed's comment was interesting and what I think as well - ie, it's odd that anyone, but esp a woman and esp one who calls herself a feminist, would be in a photo with Bill Clinton, and presumably feel some admiration towards him.

I guess what also strikes me as ironic about this whole things is that if Jessica is conscious of, and disgusted by, women's objectification, sexism, etc, (and I don't blame her for that), why in the world does she have those stupid pornish-looking silhouette icons at the top of her webpage and apparently printed on tank tops??

All this illustrates the sense and beauty of the truest feminism, which is found in the Church's teachings on the dignity of the human person.
Joanne | 09.16.06 - 9:18 pm | #

Dawn, though we don't agree on much of anything--I appreciate your support. I've been pretty shocked by all of this.

Btw Joanne, the mudflap girls are meant to be ironic--hence the middle finger.

Thanks.
Jessica | Homepage | 09.16.06 - 11:35 pm | #

You're welcome, Jessica.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.17.06 - 12:06 am | #

While I do think that people (and other feminists) have a right to comment on the way she is posed, I believe the Monica Lewinsky insinuations are over the line.
SBW | Homepage | 09.17.06 - 1:10 am | #

It's not immediately apparent that the mudflap girls are extending their *middle* fingers. In fact, I would never have realized that if it hadn't been pointed out.

"It was a nasty personal attack—one that’s ridiculously indicative of the way that young women are treated, especially by conservative a**holes."

This is from Jessica's blog. Weren't the people criticizing her liberals and feminists? I'm not sure why I'm even responding to this silly statement, but I guess I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out that conservatives do not chronically launch "nasty personal attacks" on young women.
Joanne | 09.17.06 - 1:36 am | #

Well I think Jessica looks very smart and she's a naturally pretty woman. I think what we've got from Althouse is a case of old fashioned green eyed envy and just a case of being mean.

Jessica has my sympathy too.
Tess | 09.17.06 - 2:40 am | #

Certainly they have a right to comment, if they wish to be petty and pointless. But how are comments about a woman's appearance, and especially comments with no apparent basis in reality, serving any useful purpose whatsoever except nastiness?
Ledasmom | 09.17.06 - 12:17 pm | #

"... ie, it's odd that anyone, but esp a woman and esp one who calls herself a feminist, would be in a photo with Bill Clinton, and presumably feel some admiration towards him."

What`s odd about it? Clinton`s private conduct was not up to the fidelity standards that I expect my own husband to uphold (and that I uphold myself), and his public dishonestly about his conduct was appalling and indefensible. However, his pesonal conduct aside, he did help impelement policies that many feminists believe forwarded our cause.

And I don`t know if we can infer Jessica`s "admiration" of Clinton strictly on the basis of a meeting and photo op. For example, I am not an admirer of George W. Bush, but if someday, he were to meet with obscure "mommy bloggers" and I were invited, I would surely go, to hear what he had to say. I would definitely pose for a commemorative photo, too.
L. | Homepage | 09.17.06 - 6:13 pm | #

I think Jessica deserves to taste a bit of her own medicine: look at her blog, and you'll find nothing but personal attacks on those who don't toe the "feminist" party line.

If, instead of arguing with Althouse about whether or not she was posing, Jessica had admitted the obvious, the whole thing would not have happened.

[Ivan, Jessica's a fellow commenter on this thread; please read comments rules, linked at left. - Ed.]

Edited By Siteowner
Ivan Lenin | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 2:02 am | #

What`s odd about it? There are at least three women with credible claims that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted them. Not just had affairs but sexually assaults. Isn't that odd? How many women have claimed that GWB has assaulted them?
John J. Simmins | 09.18.06 - 8:57 am | #

Ivan,
I think you are possibly half correct - in that much of the ridicule hurled at Jessica started because she refused to self-mockingly admit her pose with the former president could be construed as a sexy strut.

But some of us who strongly objected to Ann Althouse's comments felt this was pretty low. It's an old trick to get nasty if a woman refuses to chuckle over your comments about the way she looks. I am absolutely with Jessica, Dawn and others here.

It also drove me crazy that Ann Althouse kept praising the stunning originality of one commenter who had come up with the pun "tempest in a C-cup" to describe the blog row.

Original? That's one of the tiredest cliches of the British rag tabloids whenever there is a "kerfuffle" about "breasts"!
jody tresidder | 09.18.06 - 9:01 am | #

How many women have claimed that GWB has assaulted them?

Ask some lesbians who want to get married.
ORly? | 09.18.06 - 9:48 am | #

How many women have claimed that GWB has assaulted them?

John J. Simmins, if Clinton had been charged with assault and found guilty, I hope he would have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of his voting record. And again, I think his personal conduct, even of the consensual kind, was indefensible.

Oh, but your question was about Dubya? Well, I suppose we can assume that about half of the Iraqi civilian casualities are female -- does that count as "assault?" You don`t think so? Hmmmm. Then how about sexual harrassment, for giving a female an unwanted shoulder rub in front of TV cameras? (And I`d still shake GWB`s hand and pose for a photo.)
L. | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 10:24 am | #

"I think Jessica deserves to taste a bit of her own medicine: look at her blog, and you'll find nothing but personal attacks on those who don't toe the "feminist" party line."

Does she criticize their physical appearance? No. She goes after their politics, which is fair game.

The issue is that Ann Althouse criticized Jessica for having breasts, and for standing the exact same way as everyone else in the photo. Instead of dealing with Jessica's politics, Ann took on her chest. That's dispicable.
Jill | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 12:29 pm | #

It must rattle Ann Althouse that her staunch defenders - even today - keep approving the obviously indefensible part of her attack on Jessica ("taking on her chest" as Jill says).

Here's someone called Doug posting to Althouse at 8.03 am: "Sticking your breasts out is appropriate if you are participating in a photo shoot for Jugs magazine or are at a nightclub and are trying to attract the attention of some cheeseball in a muscle shirt. But if you are meeting one of the most powerful men in the world in a business type setting, it probably isn't the best move to point those things out and up.,"

Point those things out and up??!

Is that really how some men see them?
jody tresidder | 09.18.06 - 1:39 pm | #

Jody says: Point those things out and up??!

Is that really how some men see them?

Yes. And as distasteful as that sounds, it's a lot better when such men are honest (dare I say "up front"?) about it, so that decent women can be alerted and run as fast and as far as possible away from them.

It's even more distasteful when women do it to each other.
ORly? | 09.18.06 - 1:59 pm | #

"Well, I suppose we can assume that about half of the Iraqi civilian casualities are female -- does that count as "assault?""

If GWB gets the blame for this, so should the senators that voted for the use of force in Iraq. GWB was honest at the outset that the use of force would be costly in terms of money and lives. And actually, so was Bill Clinton in 1998 when he said that there could be unintentional casualties when he ordered air strikes of Iraq. But sorry, to compare someone's personal boorish and possibly criminal behavior towards women to civilian casualties in a military action authorized by Congress - or even more absurd, to believing that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman - to me demonstrates a total lack of reason and fairness.
Joanne | 09.18.06 - 2:17 pm | #

"so that decent women can be alerted and run as fast and as far as possible away from them."

Well, we actually agree on this.
Joanne | 09.18.06 - 2:18 pm | #

Jody,
"possibly half correct" -
thanks for giving me this much :) I'm gonna use it for my blog's subtitle.

I agree that Althouse went tabloid, and I wish she didn't take herslef so seriously. I'm not trying to defend Althouse, though I'm grateful to her for starting this - I'm saying that Jessica made herself fair game for tabloid-style ridicule.


Jill,
You don't seem to see the difference between "criticizing their physical appearance" and mentioning their breasts while criticizing their behavior. If you criticezed me for sexually harassing my secretary, and said, for the sake of mocking me, that I had a small penis, what would be the reason for your criticism: the size of my penis, or my actions? Wouldn't you say I was asking for indecent jokes?

In any case, Althouse got called ugly by Jessica's defenders a lot more than vice versa, and when it comes to insults, I don's see how calling somebody an a-hole is better than calling them ugly.

Jessica is ridiculous because, after posing, all smiles and excitement, with a famous womanizer, she came out as an angry feminist. That's how the boob jokes started. In other words, she got attacked because everybody saw that her "feminism" was complete BS.

If Althouse said that Jessica looks like Monica because she is a chubby brunette, you'd have a point. But the comparison was not based on looks. It was based on the male celebrity known for his "consumption of women".

Bottom line: you don't come forward with feminist rants after getting photographed with Bill Clinton.
Ivan Lenin | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 3:35 pm | #

"...personal boorish and possibly criminal behavior towards women..."

Yes on the former (no argument from me), but as for the latter -- innocent until proven guilty.

Bottom line: you don't come forward with feminist rants after getting photographed with Bill Clinton.

Eh? Why not? Since when does a photo op convey tacit approval of every action of the individual in question?
L. | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 3:47 pm | #

Ivan: Wouldn't you say I was asking for indecent jokes?

No. And Jessica certainly wasn't. Althouse, on the other hand, has a severely nasty streak, which you can see in her posts and comments. Jessica's 'crime' seems to be being pretty, not lunching with a politician whose personal behavior has been less than savory. And exactly how many politicians are moral and ethical, exactly? Precious few, I'd bet.

Bottom line: you don't come forward with feminist rants after getting photographed with Bill Clinton.

Sure you do. Jessica can do whatever she likes, and have her picture taken with anyone she wishes, regardless of her feminist beliefs, or perhaps because of them. An argument can be made that if Clinton spends more time with attractive women who aren't doormats, perhaps he'll change his mind about how to behave towards women in general. So Jessica did him a favor by gracing him with her presence, and not the one that was implied by Althouse and her fratboy commenters.

Jessica, if you're reading this, I hope you realize that Althouse told us a lot more about herself than she did about you... and none of it was good.
ORly? | 09.18.06 - 4:16 pm | #

Ivan,
At least you make yourself clear that, in your opinion, being a feminist and being photographed with Clinton are mutually exclusive. I don't agree at all but there's logic to that point of view.

However, your secretary harassing example doesn't quite work because it's YOUR pesky organ prompting the imagined indecent comments. In the Althouse case, it's Jessica - in the your secretary's role - who was the butt of blogger scorn because of the way she looked.

Also, remember, Ann Althouse turned tabloid on Jessica first - snarling at her for "posing in front of him like that" BEFORE anything about her feminist blog was mentioned.

And I'm still not sure why anyone should hone in on Jessica's looks to make a point about Clinton's awful behavior.

In any case, Althouse got called ugly by Jessica's defenders a lot more than vice versa, and when it comes to insults, I don's see how calling somebody an a-hole is better than calling them ugly.

Yes, there were vile things said about Ann Althouse. There were hideous comments from her defenders too.
jody tresidder | 09.18.06 - 5:09 pm | #

Typos, sorry.
jody tresidder | 09.18.06 - 5:10 pm | #

L:
When you want an answer, starting your question with an "Eh?" won't get you far. But thanks for trying!

ORly:
There are few politicians who are decent, but Bill Clinton is not known for his politics. He's known for his womanizing. Republicans came to power in 2000 not because of his politics, but because of his womanizing. In 20 years, nobody will remember his policies, but everybody will remember the blowjob.

An argument can be made that if Clinton spends more time with attractive women who aren't doormats
It's funny how Jessica's defenders insist on calling her attractive. Even if she were drop-dead gorgeous, it would still be pathetic, because they're doing exactly what they condemn: judging a woman by her looks. Pretty => good.

Telling Jessica "Don't listen to mean ugly Althouse! You're a princess and she's an asshole" can only reinforce Jessica's misconceptions about life, and make her neurosis and anger worse.

Jessica can do whatever she likes
Good for Jessica - unless she does something really dumb, in which case she should expect people to say whatever they like.

In any case, this boobgate is not about Jessica: she will soon be forgotten. What will be remembered, is that feminism has become a pathetic joke, and we need to thank both Jessica and Ann for making it obvious.

Jody,
In my example, the butt of the joke is he who did something despicable. In this story, the butt of the joke is she who did something despicable. Indecent comments are not prompted by organs, but by their owners.

Getting all excited to see Bill Clinton is dumb enough in itself, no matter what your gender is. Preaching "feminism" - I mean its modern American form - is dumb enough in itself. The two combined naturally produced an explosive comedic effect, which I wish Jessica would enjoy, instead of getting all angry about it. We all do stupid things sometimes, and in such cases our best hope is our ability to laugh at ourselves.
Ivan Lenin | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 5:50 pm | #

Hey, she was the youngest and prettiest girl there -- she's obviously going to be the prime target for envious snipes ... or should that be jealous snipes. (just kidding! That self-identified feminists would still associate themselves with Bill is the real "poser" here.) And she was posing in a way that indicates a certain level of body-consciousness while the other, older gals were just standing there dumpily. So when the devil started whispering in so many peoples' left ears, well ...

I guess there's a life lesson here ... something about being in the public eye, especially in this day and age of instant fame or notoriety on the web.

Sorry you're going through this, Jessica. :(
K | 09.18.06 - 6:04 pm | #

Ivan, again...It's funny how Jessica's defenders insist on calling her attractive... Pretty => good.

No, pretty does not equal good. In this case, since her appearance seems to be generating the criticism, I think it's important to note that there's nothing wrong with it; in fact, she is pretty.

In any case, this boobgate is not about Jessica: she will soon be forgotten.

Not by you, who has no less than 5 posts on the subject on your own blog, including your own nasty comments to Jessica.

What will be remembered, is that feminism has become a pathetic joke, and we need to thank both Jessica and Ann for making it obvious.

I'm a guy. I like Jessica, and I don't think that dismissing her viewpoints on the subject of women as a 'pathetic joke' is engaging in debate. You'll have to do better than that to prove your point.

In this story, the butt of the joke is she who did something despicable. Indecent comments are not prompted by organs, but by their owners.

Ah. She asked for it. If you're called for jury duty, Ivan, do the world of jurisprudence a favor and steer clear of rape trials. Jessica did nothing to merit the things that were said.

Telling Jessica "Don't listen to mean ugly Althouse! You're a princess and she's an asshole" can only reinforce Jessica's misconceptions about life, and make her neurosis and anger worse.

I never said Althouse was physically ugly, but her words reveal that she's ugly enough inside, where it counts, for me to be repelled.

And Ivan, calling someone you've never met 'neurotic', while simultaneously obsessively posting lots and lots of stuff about her all over the Net, strikes me as more than slightly ironic.

Not to mention ungentlemanly. And ugly.


ORly? | 09.18.06 - 7:00 pm | #

Well, ORly addressed many of Ivan`s points beter than I can, so I`ll just add these:

Republicans came to power in 2000 not because of his politics, but because of his womanizing.

No, I do believe it was Gore`s failure to sound decisive enough, and appeal to voters, but let the political scientists hash that one out.

In 20 years, nobody will remember his policies, but everybody will remember the blowjob.

Agreed -- but that doesn`t mean one can`t separate the man`s personal from his political actions, and continue to support him for the latter.

Even if she were drop-dead gorgeous, it would still be pathetic, because they're doing exactly what they condemn: judging a woman by her looks.

Judging a woman by her looks, or judging a woman`s looks? Big difference. Sorry that the distinction is lost on some people.
L. | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 9:25 pm | #

If a tight T-shirt is not what most women would wear for an executive job interview, then it's a mistake to wear one to meet a former president. (Same goes for the men without ties, by the way, but they were not immodest.)

Modesty is definitely all about realizing there is a range of reactions to our behavior and dress, and staying on the conservative side of that range. Was there no consideration of scandal due to wearing that T-shirt to meet someone who was suspected of giving into sexual temptations? Purity of intent doesn't mean squat if you don't consider how you will be received.

I would never read Jessica's blog, just because of the in your face obscene graphic banner. It's not what I expect from someone intelligent, polite, and modest. There is so much ugly immodesty on the Internet already.

I don't need the 'tude.

I don't think she misses me either.
Forrest Cavalier | 09.18.06 - 11:55 pm | #

Was there no consideration of scandal due to wearing that T-shirt to meet someone who was suspected of giving into sexual temptations? Wow -- you really make it sound as if she were wearing lingerie!

I would wear that sweater to a job interview, actually -- and I don`t have anywhere near as nice a body as Jessica. Or is that the point? It`s only okay to reveal one`s body if it`s old and shapeless? Pretty women need to cover up?

I would never read Jessica's blog, just because of the in your face obscene graphic banner.

That`s your right. But if all of us shun presentations and points of view with which we don`t agree, we`ll never learn anything, will we?
L. | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 12:51 am | #

Sorry, L. Does anyone really hold that lingerie is the standard by which to consider scandal?
Forrest Cavalier | 09.19.06 - 11:42 am | #

That`s your right. But if all of us shun presentations and points of view with which we don`t agree, we`ll never learn anything, will we?

I didn't comment on her viewpoints.

It is prudent to shun public presentations we don't like, not intolerant. Public presentation is not a one-sided effort, you know. So if you curse or flip me off for no reason, I'm walking.

Let me ask you, L., are you attracted to learn the finer viewpoints of men spewing misogynist hip-hop?

For some, those lyrics are merely ironic high brow commentary. If we shun their presentation, we may not learn anything.

Not.
Forrest Cavalier | 09.19.06 - 12:25 pm | #

Let me ask you, L., are you attracted to learn the finer viewpoints of men spewing misogynist hip-hop?

As a matter of fact, yes. I`m always interested in whether such men are as misogynistic in life as their lyrics suggest -- and if so, why.

It is prudent to shun public presentations we don't like, not intolerant.

I disagree. I don`t shun public presentations I don`t like, and it has nothing to do with tolerance, and everything to do with trying to understand what makes people think the way they do.

So if you curse or flip me off for no reason, I'm walking.

I can`t imagine doing such a thing to you, but if someone did, walking is a reasonable approach, especially if they sounded threatening.

But if there`s no apparent threat of violence, I usually stick around to see what all the anger is about.
L. | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 12:48 pm | #

ORly:
There is a big difference between raping somebody and making fun of them. It's really a cheap shot. Your lack of perspective on this shows the depth of your understanding of the subject.

As far as remembering Jessica - if I remembered every silly person I obsessively make fun of, I would be much more neurotic than either you or me or Jessica. And even if I do remember her - well, that's actually a good memory, a very funny story. As for neurosis, everybody has them, I've blogged planty about my own, so it's not like you've said something I haven't heard. It's normal to have a neurosis, denying you have one is not. Sorry if this ruins the irony.

If you think Jessica did nothing stupid to deserve ridicule, that's fine with me. Most blog readers don't seem to agree with that. I see no reason to be interested in her opinion on the subject of women: it's 100% predictable.

L:
I didn't bring up the subject of Jessica's alleged attractiveness. Her "defenders" did - which to me says that they find it relevant. It's from the same book as Clinton's "beautiful blue eyes."
Ivan Lenin | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 1:23 pm | #

Sorry I didn't catch Orly's name-calling. Everyone, please read the comments rules, linked at left. I will start making deletions if the name-calling continues. Thanks for your cooperation.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 1:25 pm | #

"I don`t shun public presentations I don`t like."
L.

Yes you do, L.
If some guy flashed you on the street, you'd shun it. You wouldn't tolerate it one bit. You'd call the cops, and you'd have every right to.

...or to take a less extreme example, if a coworker of yours wore an "abortion is homicide" T-shirt to work every day, you'd complain to the boss. In other words, you'd shun the coworker's public presentation.
Leif | 09.19.06 - 5:34 pm | #

Leif,

What on earth has happened to the word "public" in L's sentence?

This has been magically, conveniently erased in your example about L's imaginary work colleague wearing a T-shirt with a potentially inflammatory slogan to their shared place of employment every day!

The work space isn't a "public" space is it? I imagine L's boss and the work's HR department would be on the matter pretty quickly as a source of disruption.
jody tresidder | 09.19.06 - 7:25 pm | #

True, Jody -- I would probably leave it to the HR people.

If some guy flashed you on the street, you'd shun it.

Depending on what he "flashed," I wouldn`t "shun" it -- I`d run like heck in the other direction, and call the cops. I believe flashing one`s private bits at a stranger would fall under the category of "threat."

Leif, I don`t agree with you. Do I shun you? No -- here I am, ON A PRO-LIFE BLOG, engaging you in discussion while all the while trying to stay polite.
L. | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 8:56 pm | #

"I`d run like heck in the other direction, and call the cops."

That's called shunning.
Leif | 09.20.06 - 8:24 am | #

Leif,

I have to say you've pretty much ceased making any objective sense on this one.
jody tresidder | 09.20.06 - 9:32 am | #

No, that`s called running away from a man who I fear might physically assault me.

If you insist that`s "shunning," I will put it this way: I shun people who threaten physical harm to me -- whether or not I happen to agree with their opinions. See, it has nothing to do with their point of view -- I`m just afraid they might hurt me.

But words rarely hurt me.
L. | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 10:23 am | #

right now, i'm starting to suspect that this is all a brilliant diversion implemented by unthinkably skilled security operatives to prevent us from learning anything at all substantive about the blogger brunch. what were clinton's stated objectives for his upcoming series of meets? did he indicate that he himself read blogs, and if so, which ones? what topics were discussed during the meal? could any common aims or enemies be identified? did the former prez and his guests unofficially agree to work together on behalf of any agendas? how does bill plan to incorporate so-called "new media" into his future endeavors? ::sigh:: well, i guess we'll never know.

on the bright side, imagine if ann is invited to the next one. :)
serpentyn | 09.21.06 - 2:42 am | #