Chris Dodd's Official Campaign Blogger Wrote That Conservative Women Are "Dumb Ass Bitches"

Not quite on par with Amanda Marcotte's vile "satirical" post about God's holy spunk, but it does show that liberals think the media will let them get away with stuff a conservative would be crucified for.

And of course they're right.

Incidentally, he tagged me as a misogynist, too. Not that I noticed. Never heard of the guy, never got a single hit I noticed from his tiny site. How does this guy rate a campaign job, given his intemperate "dumb ass bitches" style of writing?

I'll note once again that the only conservative bloggers to get campaign or other official jobs have pretty-much spotless blogging histories. Which is, I think, as it should be.

How come liberal politicians can hire pretty much anyone they like without their bloggers' more, um, excitable pronouncements being noted by the media?

PS: Chris Dodd is a big fan of Imus'.

Maybe we can expect some good nappy-headed ho's postings from his official blogger.

Incidentally... How I even rate a mention in the Famous Feministing Fooferall is beyond me. My whole attitude was one of bemusement and incomprehesion. I really had no idea what the feminists -- including Althouse (I believe she self-identifies as a feminist, I could be wrong) -- were really arguing about. You had all this heated debate about when and under what circumstances a woman was permitted (or encouraged) to show a bit of bust. It all seemed to me a bit absurd, inside-baseball crap that had little relevance to the real world, much like the minutes of a Libertarian Party meeting.

I did, of course, gleefully note that Clinton's "Rainbow Coalition of Bloggers" photo-op included nary a single black, brown, or even beige face, but hey, that has not a thing to do with feminism. When the argument turned into over whether or not Jessica from Feministing was intentionally angling her boobies for the camera, I sort of called nonsense on the whole "debate."

The left, however, is either stupid or dishonest. I think this posting by the quite-unhinged David Nieuwert is a good example of that. Mocking the whole controversy, I wrote:

Can Anyone Follow... arguments between feminists anymore?

I can't.

They're talking about hooters and stuff so I should be interested and yet I'm not.

What is the argument here? I don't get it.

She posed for a picture. She wanted to look nice. Maybe, yeah, she wanted to look sexy. Who doesn't?

I think Althouse may have some deeper point about double-standards (she keeps bringing up the left's attack on Katherine Harris' makeup, etc.) but I don't know about the superficial point.

And I don't know why the other feminist just doesn't say, "Yeah, of course I was posing. I wanted to look hot. So what?"

It's this odd argument where it seems both sides are guilty of some double-think, or else engaging in this weird cant that neither really believes.

1) She was posing

2) There's nothing wrong with that; women are judged on their looks just like men are. Hell, just like pigs and cattle are, for crying out loud. As are cars. As are computers. As is everything.

3) Now let's stop all this fussin' and fightin' and make out.

...

Posted Only Because It's Relevant...

As the comments all are about how these feminists defy the stereotype and try to look hot, I really don't get the argument about whether it's okay to try to look good for a picture.

Via Allah, of course. Sexual politics, chicks arguing about hotness, decolletage... it was only a matter of time, really.

Another Cat In The Fight: Fur-flyin' fun! [Linking some or other lefty feminist; probably the chicks from Feministe]

Just to keep track of the various hussies involved in all of this nonsense.

That's right, I said "hussy." Wearin' lipstick. Smiling.

Like a whore.

Now, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone I'm mocking the whole argument when I write that a "hussy" who "wear[s] lipstick" and even goes so far as to "smil[e]" for a picture is behaving "Like a whore."

Smiling? And wearin' lipstick? Make a woman a whore? I really think that?

I'm not sure anyone would make that claim outside of maybe Piper Laurie in Carrie.

He's actually endeavoring to sell that absurd lie to his (select few) readers. While posing as a Holier-Than-Thou purveyor of The Unflinching Truth.*

And yet this asshole, Nieuwert, quotes those two lines as if I'm serious, and doesn't bother noting the my whole "you're both being silly, now just stop it" take on the matter.

Now, one can knock me for not taking seriously this Scary-Important Debate Over The Propriety Of Showing Boobies And Being Pretty While Maintaining One's Integrity As A Feminist In A Patriarchal Society, and for leering at kinda-cute chicks and giggling at their silliness in speaking in a weird cant having almost no relationship to actual reality or their true beliefs, but really, to claim I'm calling women whores and hussies for smiling and wearing lipstick is ludicrously dishonest.

Neiuwert could have said "The troglodytic Ace of Spades takes this opportunity leer down Jessica Valenti's neckline like a twelve-year-old." Guilty as charged! (And by God I'd do it again if I had the chance, and no jury in the world would convict me!)

But this crap about lipstick making a woman a whore? Are you shittin' me, Son? Are you really trying to pass that crap off to your readers?

They do this all the time. They're simply incredibly, maliciously dishonest people, and yet they strut around as if they're among God's Elect of Integrity and Truthiness.

Anyway, a long rambling divergence about a blatant misrepresentation I'd long wanted to mention. But really, how I even get mentioned in this argument is beyond me. My only real contribution to it was to say Valenti had a halfway decent rack.

* BTW, if you want to talk herd-enforced groupthink, not a single one of his commeters called him on this blatant misrepresentation. If I tried to sell an obviously-sarcastic line from a liberal as seriously intended, almost all of you would call me on it.

Nieuwert's "independent-thinking" disciples all just went along with it, however. (At least the last time I checked.) Any lie that advances The Truth is, ipso facto, part of The Truth and therefore not a lie at all.

My Take: The post that never ends.

Let me sum up the obvious for David "I'm an important independent journalist who documents the imminent takeover of the US by Neo-Nazi cults" Nieuwert, as well as for Matt Hyphenated-Manbitch, who seems to have not actually read my post on the matter:

1) Althouse was, I think, straining mightily, and not terribly convincingly, to make some point about hypocrisy about sexuality in third-wave feminists.

2) However, she did actually wind up making a point, because the reply from Valenti and her defenders was not the obvious, commonsense one -- "Of course she was posing and wanted to look attractive; this was to be the most widely circulated photograph of her ever taken; why would you imagine she would do otherwise?" -- but to insist, bizarrely, that she wasn't "posing" at all, but rather was apparently the victim of a strange "lensing effect" in the space-time continuum that caused her to appear in a three-quarters profile to all who view her, no matter what their actual vantage point.

The fact that these feminist-types couldn't just bring themselves to state the blindingly obvious -- "She posed. What of it?" -- did ultimately indicate some level of dishonest double-think on their parts. Because, yeah, as Althouse suggested, there's this weird idea among feminists that they're not supposed to look pretty, as that's selling out to the Pornographic Patriarchy or something.

And yes, this weird notion persists even in ostensibly pro-sex feminists like Valenti, author of a quickie, big-font-big-margin "books" featuring a cover that look like this.

The irreality of the whole debate ("irreality" might not be a real word, but it is the one I intend, real or no) was what I found arresting.

That, and of course the hooters.

On all sides feminists were caterwauling as if this was an important and substantive argument, when it was all clearly just a tempest in a D-cup.

posted by Ace at 03:57 PM

| Access Comments