(Warning: This is going to be a nasty, ugly post. And totally blogging metalicious. Bwahahaha.)
I hadn't watched the video of Ann Althouse's departure from sanity during a conversation with Garance Franke-Ruta (who has the coolest name ever), because Althouse has always seemed to me one of those I'm-a-feminist-but... sort of people whose arguments I'm not interested in wading through. Others specialize in that sort of thing, I leave it to them. Any interest I ever might have had in her opinions was effectively killed when she decided that it was very inappropriate for Jessica Valenti to be photographed in the same room as President Clinton while wearing her breasts.
Which is a shame, because as you probably know, breasts aren't readily detachable. And thank goodness; imagine how embarassing if I'd forgotten them in any of the places I've ever forgotten a bra. You'll forgive me if I don't elaborate on that point, I hope. Also, binding them hasn't been in vogue since the 1920's, when everybody wanted to look like emaciated flappers. The only solution, on accepting Althouse's premise of offense, is that Bill Clinton should only ever be photographed in the company of double mastectomy survivors. But I digress.
It's like when you have to learn to spot counterfeit bills, you study the real ones like the very devil, until you know them so well that you would see at once if something fell into the not-real category. I still have studying to do. No time for counterfeit feminists.
But Lords, Dave Neiwert posted the transcript, along with some of his always excellent commentary, and I couldn't look away. ROTFLMAO!
Althouse: Well, you were raising it within a context of people who are trying to assassinate me on frequent occasions, who say the most nasty things about me with no cause, or just any context -- they take things out of context -- It's a very nasty, ugly thing and I don't like it at all and I don't like just glancing references to it in a way that makes me look bad like that. It's not part of what we're talking about, we had developed the context, and to just throw out a label like that, which is the label from the side of the people who attack me, in the way I'm trying to talk about, in saying that your side of the blogosphere is ugly -- you know, I just consider that undermining and against the whole context of trying to have a conversation here. ...
Althouse: ---- these are flame wars, and what I'm trying to say on the overarching point, is that the left side of the blogosphere is vicious and unfair and nasty to me, and I don't like it, and I'm trying to ask you why that's the way they treat me when I support most of what they're for. Meanwhile, on the right side of the blogosphere, where there's much less overlap, I think, I am treated in a very warm and connecting kind of way. And you're really just kind of undermining my point, uh, by bringing that up like that. ...
Look, when you argue that wearing a fitted knit top and posing in a 3/4 stance, as people often do in crowded group photographs, makes someone's feminism and general credibility suspect, people are going to mock you. When you argue that having photographs of human beings with breasts (Lordy, there are WOMEN pictured on that site! Women! With breasts! Shub Niggurath, the Goat With The Thousand Young! Aieeeeeeeee!) on a website makes that website's feminist bona fides suspect, people are going to mock you. When you lose your damn mind about it, even more people are going to mock you. If you're already known as one of the Alan Colmeses of the blogosphere, mockery will follow as the night follows the day, as ducklings follow their mothers, as Bushies follow The Rove, as ... well, you get the picture.
Why? Because it's funny. It just is, and there's no help for it. Sorry. Okay, not really.
Update: Link added.Posted by natasha at March 29, 2007 11:03 AM | Blogging | Technorati links |