In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

IWF: Dear God, Not Boobies!

Jill

If I had some extra money, I’d buy Charlotte Allen a course in Logic 101. Because as it stands, she has somehow managed to see a picture of Bill Clinton with a group of male and female (!) bloggers, see that Feministing has an ironic feminist logo featuring a woman’s (!) silhouette and advertises women’s tank tops by posting a picture of a woman (!) wearing said tank top, couple that with the fact that Hillary Clinton may possibly be running for president, and shit this out:

Do we really want as our first female president a woman whose husband hosts parties attended by inappropriately attired young women who run websites featuring naked gals with large racks making obscene gestures? If we’re on the left, the answer is: Yes, we do.

All this, and she’s like two weeks late to Boobiegate. Plus she got Jessica’s name wrong (although poor Jessica Lindstrom out there is gonna get quite a reputation). Oh Char, you’re so pretty…

But really, the personal attacks on Jessica have got to stop. If you’re as sick of this as I am, consider writing a letter to the board of directors of the organizations that serve as IWF’s major funders. They are:

Sarah Scaife Foundation, $1.2 million
Olin Foundation $700,000
Bradley Foundation, $420,000
Carthage Foundation, $300,000
Castle Rock Foundation, $100,000

Let them know what their money is being used to promote.

26 thoughts on IWF: Dear God, Not <em>Boobies</em>!

  4. I know that what Jessica was wearing is not the point, but I can’t help noting how much that “inappropriately attired” business drives me up the wall. Because if Jessica was inappropriately attired, then so’s every woman in my mother’s department. And my mother’s in accounting, which is not exactly a field full of people known for having daredevil fashion senses. It’s like Charlotte said “Oh, to hell with accuracy” and just went nuts.

    I sure hope Ann’s proud of what she started. Way to strike a blow for the movement, Ann–the reactionary movement.

  5. Yeah, what Ilyka said. I’m not exaggerating when I say that, despite having followed Boobiegate as closely as was healthy for my psyche, I skimmed the quoted passage without comprehension. I honestly, honestly couldn’t figure out WHO she was referring to.

    “Parties with inappropriately attired young women? Jesus, is Joe Francis’ wife running for President?”

  6. having followed Boobiegate as closely as was healthy for my psyche

    Heh. That could easily be viewed as a window to my personality, but let’s assume it’s not. 😉

  7. “Castle Rock Foundation, $100,000”

    Having just reread a bunch of Stephen King books, the first association that came to mind here was with serial killing deputy sheriffs, possibly possessed rabid dogs, crazed alter egos, and demonic shopkeepers.

    Which, if we’re talking IWF funders . . .

  8. I’m thinking it would be a good idea to distribute this editorial to young women who are politically on the fence. Because I know a whole hell of a lot of politically-undecided young women who look and dress a fair bit like Jessica. Actually, some of them dress a whole lot less conservatively than Jessica. I think they’d be pretty pissed off to know that this right-wing woman hates them so much that she thinks that allowing your husband to meet with them should disqualify you from a political career. What an utterly clear way to convey that you don’t value the political input of young women, unless they dress in head-to-toe modesty-wear.

    I think I’m going to write a letter to the IWF board of directors thanking them for the editorial and telling them that I’ve handed out copies at my university’s dining hall, along with copies of the offending picture, so that undergraduate women realize just how much the IWF loathes them.

  9. I know that the IWF’s (whatever the hell that is) list of funders will probably not be popular at this website, but they’re not in the habit of bankrolling spiteful and prurient personal attacks. The Olin Foundation, for instance, founded a college that doesn’t charge tuition. Most of these organizations are ‘social conservatives,’ and whatever disagreements you have with the people who normally march under that banner, they should respond to complaints about vile little personal attacks that serve only to poison public discourse. For that matter, mentioning the crudely ad hominem character of the post might also make an impact: do you know how bad it makes you look when someone makes such a stupid and illiterate argument in your name?

    I couldn’t read the article, couldn’t get past the author’s preening and breathless idiocy, so pleased with herself when, as Jill noted, she’s two weeks late to something that was destined to be pure ephemera. Rather than “boobiegate,” shouldn’t we put the blame where it belongs, and call it “shit-for-brains-gate?” Sometimes it’s all so infuriating, you just want to smash the series of tubes that is the internets.

  11. Oh my God, how painfully stupid.

    Pssst . . . Charlotte, so-called “Boobiegate” was all about Althouse having egg in her face and struggling valiantly to deny it. You might do her favor and quietly move on rather than prolong Ann’s agony.

  12. Heraclitus, these funders (Scaife in particular) have a long history of funding spiteful personal attacks on the Clintons. If you’re looking for well-mannered social conservatives, you’re looking at the wrong list.

  13. Another fine example of how if you’re female, you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If Jessica had worn something large and drapey to disguise the fact she has breasts, dear Charlotte and her ilk would be all over the Internet, talking about what a slob she was, and how she needs a personal shopper or consult with an upscale store on buying and/or tailoring clothes to fit. If you’re a small woman with large breasts, there is no damn way too disguise that without wearing clothes that are too large—neckholes that sag, armholes you could put your legs through, and shirt lengths that practically hit the kneecaps (too long to tuck in).

  14. I suppose she could always bind her chest. That might be uncomfortable enough to make the Charlotte-types happy.

  15. INAPPROPRIATELY ATTIRED????????

    Jesus Christ, what the hell does this woman want us to wear? Potato sacks?

    or burqas. that would be a start.

    but seriously, when are these humorless anti-feminists gonna realize how stupid this is making them look and drop boobiegate already?

    which reminds me, oh wise Feministe writers, have you considered making a special sub-category called “boobiegate” to file under “assholes”?

  16. furthermore, upon reading Allen’s whole article (and having my brain explode in the process) I’m still trying to figure out how anyone (Althouse included) can continue to call themselves “feminists” while reducing a woman to the sum of her clothing and body parts (although I will say this again, Jessica’s attire was FAR from inappropriate – I wear more daring clothes to work almost every day).

  18. Ok, I showed the picture to my mom, who is one of the most conservative people I know, in order to see if I was missing something. She looked at it for a few minutes and said “I don’t get it, what are they freaking out about? She looks fine, she’s dressed very conservatively and the only reason you can tell she has breasts is she wore a light colored shirt”. And my mom is the type of person who would normally agree with the IWF, so even their target audience thinks they’re full of it.

  19. I know that the IWF’s (whatever the hell that is) list of funders will probably not be popular at this website, but they’re not in the habit of bankrolling spiteful and prurient personal attacks.

    As Thomas said, the Scaifes made an industry out of prurient personal attacks on the Clintons. And this is par for the course.

    You have to remember, this isn’t really about Jessica, this is about Clinton. They’re using her, and her body, to attack Bill Clinton. They don’t care who she is, or what she’s doing there, just that her appearance and proximity to Clinton provide a convenient tool for reliving the whole Lewinsky thing. They’re frustrated, you see — all that effort and money put into trying to take him down, and he not only remained in office, the attacks on him didn’t do a damn thing to lessen his popularity.

    That Jessica happened to be, upon investigation, a feminist blogger who uses ironic mudflap girl imagery and features women with breasts modeling t-shirts for the site was a bonus. It gave them the opportunity to slam feminism, raunch culture, liberals and Kids Today.

    which reminds me, oh wise Feministe writers, have you considered making a special sub-category called “boobiegate” to file under “assholes”?

    I kind of like David Niewert’s term, l’affaire booboisie.

  21. “Do we really want as our first female president a woman whose husband hosts parties attended by inappropriately attired young women who run websites featuring naked gals with large racks making obscene gestures? If we’re on the left, the answer is: Yes, we do.”

    Maybe I’m just picky, but I like my criticisms of potential candidates to be a little more…relevant. Nevermind the logic, they’re ragging on the wrong Clinton altogether.

    I don’t care much, either, for the implications that our first female president has to be exceptional–cus, you know, she’s gonna be the first. Sure, I’d love to have the best female president ever on our first run, but when it comes down to A, B, or C, all I require is that the candidate I choose be what I consider our country’s best choice; why pass that over over because she’ll look “bad” as the first female president?

  22. Heraclitus, Scaife *bankrolled* most of the salacious attacks on the Clintons (including the whole “murdered people” meme.) Castle Rock is Coors – not at all a feminist outfit. Charlotte Allen is not saying anything that the “think tanks” the’ve been funding for the past 30 years haven’t been saying all along. This is de riguer for the NRO/Heritage Foundation crowd.

    Sure, big foundations also give money to legitimate charities. (Most of them.) Some of the same ones that fund the nastiest theocratic gaybashing outfits also are big environmentalists. The De Vos family are also big patrons of the arts. So?

  23. I’ve never heard of this IWF before, but it’s giving me cognitive dissonance. “Voice for women”. “Independent Women”. “All Issues are Women’s Issues”. “Inappropriately attired young women” RANT RANT RANT. Buh…what?

    What the heck is this place? I’m so confused. It looks like a duck and barks like a dog.

  24. “Independent Women” are women who spend all their time writing about how men are from Mars, women are from Venus, and feminism is the source of all that’s wrong in the world. Or something like that.

  26. Pingback: Feministe » Uncovering Iran

Comments are currently closed.