<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Jessica&#8217;s breasts and Bill Clinton: a lengthy reflection</title>
	<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:39:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Gonzman</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25865</link>
		<dc:creator>The Gonzman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:13:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25865</guid>
		<description>Well, Douglas, if you care to go back any amount of times, you can find all manner of poster in good standing tagging me with the misogynist badge - that is if you can read beyond what you want to see.  It's neither recent or uncommon here, and pilloried elsewhere that Hugo has allowed "misogynists" like me or Mr. Bad, et al to "intrude" here.

But what the hell - mutability of the past has always been a hall mark of your side, and making excuses for Orwellian practices.  But you don't like me shining my badge - well, guess who it was that pinned it on me to begin with? Txfeminist - ginmar -all the usual suspects.  Sorry reality is uncomfortable for you.

Fact of the matter is, Bill Clinton is not and was not ever a paragon of "women's rights" or treating women anything else except as a vessel for his personal gratification, adultery and harassment are a given, and rape on his part is more than quite possible to anyone who isn't purely a partisan hack.

And if that is an example of a defender of women's rights, suitable to be held up for admiration, it is pathetic.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, Douglas, if you care to go back any amount of times, you can find all manner of poster in good standing tagging me with the misogynist badge - that is if you can read beyond what you want to see.  It&#8217;s neither recent or uncommon here, and pilloried elsewhere that Hugo has allowed &#8220;misogynists&#8221; like me or Mr. Bad, et al to &#8220;intrude&#8221; here.</p>
<p>But what the hell - mutability of the past has always been a hall mark of your side, and making excuses for Orwellian practices.  But you don&#8217;t like me shining my badge - well, guess who it was that pinned it on me to begin with? Txfeminist - ginmar -all the usual suspects.  Sorry reality is uncomfortable for you.</p>
<p>Fact of the matter is, Bill Clinton is not and was not ever a paragon of &#8220;women&#8217;s rights&#8221; or treating women anything else except as a vessel for his personal gratification, adultery and harassment are a given, and rape on his part is more than quite possible to anyone who isn&#8217;t purely a partisan hack.</p>
<p>And if that is an example of a defender of women&#8217;s rights, suitable to be held up for admiration, it is pathetic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Douglas, Friend of Osho</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25864</link>
		<dc:creator>Douglas, Friend of Osho</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:58:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25864</guid>
		<description>Wow, Gonz, feminist ideology actually warrants capitlized spelling!! Glad you could find the shift key! Maybe there's hope for you that Jack Daniels can't provide. Seriously, Gonz: do you see anyone here flaming me because I don't go along with the usual mainstream liberal sap's misguided appreciation of the Man from Hope? Of course not. So much for your silly notion that progressives whomp dissenters.You're just upset that only your fellow ditto-heads take any pride in your shiny woman-hater badge.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, Gonz, feminist ideology actually warrants capitlized spelling!! Glad you could find the shift key! Maybe there&#8217;s hope for you that Jack Daniels can&#8217;t provide. Seriously, Gonz: do you see anyone here flaming me because I don&#8217;t go along with the usual mainstream liberal sap&#8217;s misguided appreciation of the Man from Hope? Of course not. So much for your silly notion that progressives whomp dissenters.You&#8217;re just upset that only your fellow ditto-heads take any pride in your shiny woman-hater badge.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Gonzman</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25863</link>
		<dc:creator>The Gonzman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:09:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25863</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;In other words, you see it as something feminists call those who don't agree with them, and therefore you really, really want to be called a misogynist. Whatever.&lt;/i&gt;

It's something I've been called before for simply disagreeing.

You all don't want to wear those shoes, stop putting them on so damn eagerly.  It's hardly my fault if they fit.  And not my job to change anyone else's perception of you, I didn't take you to raise.

There's a reason that people think such things of you, and for once you might grow up and look in the mirror to see just why it is; the very fact that Doc Hugo gets such a ration of crap from the collective you - his supposed allies - for allowing the occasional dissenting viewpoint sure as God made Little Green Apples would seem to be a whallop with the cluebat for you.

By all means, though - don't change for me.  Just makes my job easier.  All I have to do is point and let people figure it out for themselves.  It's far, far more eloquent than anything I might actually say.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>In other words, you see it as something feminists call those who don&#8217;t agree with them, and therefore you really, really want to be called a misogynist. Whatever.</i></p>
<p>It&#8217;s something I&#8217;ve been called before for simply disagreeing.</p>
<p>You all don&#8217;t want to wear those shoes, stop putting them on so damn eagerly.  It&#8217;s hardly my fault if they fit.  And not my job to change anyone else&#8217;s perception of you, I didn&#8217;t take you to raise.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s a reason that people think such things of you, and for once you might grow up and look in the mirror to see just why it is; the very fact that Doc Hugo gets such a ration of crap from the collective you - his supposed allies - for allowing the occasional dissenting viewpoint sure as God made Little Green Apples would seem to be a whallop with the cluebat for you.</p>
<p>By all means, though - don&#8217;t change for me.  Just makes my job easier.  All I have to do is point and let people figure it out for themselves.  It&#8217;s far, far more eloquent than anything I might actually say.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lynn Gazis-Sax</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25862</link>
		<dc:creator>Lynn Gazis-Sax</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:38:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25862</guid>
		<description>Yes, I went to Althouse's site and actually read the thread.  Yes, I actually &lt;em&gt;saw&lt;/em&gt; the intern jokes at Jessica's expense (implying that she was a whore, because that's what "intern" means in that context) &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; Jessica showed up to complain.  Yes, I know damn well that the thread had &lt;em&gt;already&lt;/em&gt; gone south before she showed up, because I read every damn comment about her that came before hers.  You're just plain wrong, justaguy, about when it went south.  The &lt;em&gt;very first&lt;/em&gt; comments out the gate were ones casting aspersions on then-anonymous Jessica.

I don't make statements like that about threads based on second hand reports; I can read for myself, thank you very much.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I went to Althouse&#8217;s site and actually read the thread.  Yes, I actually <em>saw</em> the intern jokes at Jessica&#8217;s expense (implying that she was a whore, because that&#8217;s what &#8220;intern&#8221; means in that context) <em>before</em> Jessica showed up to complain.  Yes, I know damn well that the thread had <em>already</em> gone south before she showed up, because I read every damn comment about her that came before hers.  You&#8217;re just plain wrong, justaguy, about when it went south.  The <em>very first</em> comments out the gate were ones casting aspersions on then-anonymous Jessica.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t make statements like that about threads based on second hand reports; I can read for myself, thank you very much.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: justaguy</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25861</link>
		<dc:creator>justaguy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:27:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25861</guid>
		<description>Hugo: So, I can whip out my cock and in the park and display it for all to see, and yet it's not my exhibitionist behavior that should be condemned, but rather, the people who are aroused, offended, etc., by it?  Glad you cleared that up for me.  Also, I don't know any "misogynists," so that means they don't exist, right? (Except of course those misogynists like Gonz and myself who don't tow the feminist party line).

Technocracygirl, all the other women in the picture are wearing blouses or tops that are more loose-fitting than the breast-clinging top Jessica was sporting, so I suggest those might be a model to look to re. what to wear when dining with a former POTUS.  I certainly won't be wearing tight-fitting, ball-hugging jeans if/when I'm invited to dine with Margaret Thatcher; more likely I'll wear loose-fitting wool slacks, a white shirt and tie, and a sportcoat.  It's all a matter of common sense and personal responsibility.

And finally, Lynn, did you actually go the Althouse's site and read the thread, or are you simply relying on reports from the feminist community re. what went on there?  I went to Althouse's site, read that thread and the related one, and know for a fact that the post was about the lame comments that the bloggers wrote after the meeting and only digressed into (IMO) a petty catfight after Jessica showed up at Althouse's blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hugo: So, I can whip out my cock and in the park and display it for all to see, and yet it&#8217;s not my exhibitionist behavior that should be condemned, but rather, the people who are aroused, offended, etc., by it?  Glad you cleared that up for me.  Also, I don&#8217;t know any &#8220;misogynists,&#8221; so that means they don&#8217;t exist, right? (Except of course those misogynists like Gonz and myself who don&#8217;t tow the feminist party line).</p>
<p>Technocracygirl, all the other women in the picture are wearing blouses or tops that are more loose-fitting than the breast-clinging top Jessica was sporting, so I suggest those might be a model to look to re. what to wear when dining with a former POTUS.  I certainly won&#8217;t be wearing tight-fitting, ball-hugging jeans if/when I&#8217;m invited to dine with Margaret Thatcher; more likely I&#8217;ll wear loose-fitting wool slacks, a white shirt and tie, and a sportcoat.  It&#8217;s all a matter of common sense and personal responsibility.</p>
<p>And finally, Lynn, did you actually go the Althouse&#8217;s site and read the thread, or are you simply relying on reports from the feminist community re. what went on there?  I went to Althouse&#8217;s site, read that thread and the related one, and know for a fact that the post was about the lame comments that the bloggers wrote after the meeting and only digressed into (IMO) a petty catfight after Jessica showed up at Althouse&#8217;s blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mythago</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25860</link>
		<dc:creator>mythago</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:48:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25860</guid>
		<description>In other words, you see it as something feminists call those who don't agree with them, and therefore you really, really want to be called a misogynist. Whatever.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In other words, you see it as something feminists call those who don&#8217;t agree with them, and therefore you really, really want to be called a misogynist. Whatever.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Gonzman</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25859</link>
		<dc:creator>The Gonzman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:15:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25859</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;You keep asking us to slap you with this label. It's as if you consider it a badge of pride.&lt;/i&gt;

Since I disagree with the basic fundmanetal operating premises of the Feminist Ideology, though, I'm pretty safe to assume it's a given.  I'm just facing up to the reality.

Since it gets slapped on everything that is critical of feminism, don't think I'm wearing it as a badge of pride or anything - it's pretty much a watered down and meaningless label as a result of it being applied haphazardly and by reflex.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>You keep asking us to slap you with this label. It&#8217;s as if you consider it a badge of pride.</i></p>
<p>Since I disagree with the basic fundmanetal operating premises of the Feminist Ideology, though, I&#8217;m pretty safe to assume it&#8217;s a given.  I&#8217;m just facing up to the reality.</p>
<p>Since it gets slapped on everything that is critical of feminism, don&#8217;t think I&#8217;m wearing it as a badge of pride or anything - it&#8217;s pretty much a watered down and meaningless label as a result of it being applied haphazardly and by reflex.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kathy</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25858</link>
		<dc:creator>Kathy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:57:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25858</guid>
		<description>I agree with Justaguy that we need to praise good public behavior. When good public servants demonstrate bad private behavior,however, I'm less likely to be confident in their core character. That leads me to be suspicious of their motives no matter how effective their public actions are,  and less trustful that they have the best interest of their constituents in mind. 

You nailed it when you described (in the post on All Saints and the IRS) Bush and former presidential candidate Kerry as "princes of this world."  We need to be so careful not to confuse our mission to practice  God's kingdom principles instead of putting our hope in presidents.

Sorry to mix threads here, but I think the two are related.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Justaguy that we need to praise good public behavior. When good public servants demonstrate bad private behavior,however, I&#8217;m less likely to be confident in their core character. That leads me to be suspicious of their motives no matter how effective their public actions are,  and less trustful that they have the best interest of their constituents in mind. </p>
<p>You nailed it when you described (in the post on All Saints and the IRS) Bush and former presidential candidate Kerry as &#8220;princes of this world.&#8221;  We need to be so careful not to confuse our mission to practice  God&#8217;s kingdom principles instead of putting our hope in presidents.</p>
<p>Sorry to mix threads here, but I think the two are related.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mythago</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25857</link>
		<dc:creator>mythago</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 02:57:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25857</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Well, I'm sure I'm considered a misogynist&lt;/i&gt;

You keep asking us to slap you with this label. It's as if you consider it a badge of pride.

Lots of feminists supported Clinton because they realized the people attacking him didn't care about Monica Lewinsky, sexual harassment, or even adultery; they just wanted an excuse to kill Bill. (That's an explanation, not an excuse, by the way.) It's particularly vile that many of the same people freaked about Clinton were either themselves adulterers or embraced adulterers on their own side of the political chasm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Well, I&#8217;m sure I&#8217;m considered a misogynist</i></p>
<p>You keep asking us to slap you with this label. It&#8217;s as if you consider it a badge of pride.</p>
<p>Lots of feminists supported Clinton because they realized the people attacking him didn&#8217;t care about Monica Lewinsky, sexual harassment, or even adultery; they just wanted an excuse to kill Bill. (That&#8217;s an explanation, not an excuse, by the way.) It&#8217;s particularly vile that many of the same people freaked about Clinton were either themselves adulterers or embraced adulterers on their own side of the political chasm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Technocracygirl</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25856</link>
		<dc:creator>Technocracygirl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 02:26:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/09/18/jessicas-breasts-and-bill-clinton-a-lengthy-reflection/#comment-25856</guid>
		<description>Justaguy, what exactly should Ms. Valenti have worn?  My guess from these pictures is that she has a large chest.  What would have been better for her to wear, a mummuu?  A chador?  It may sound like I'm joking, but I'm not.  Large-chested women are going to have breasts that stick out if you wear anything even remotely form-fitting, which includes a baggy t-shirt.

Ms. Valenti chose to wear a nice outfit with a modest neckline and cap sleeves.  It is tailored to display her body, yes, but not in anything that wouldn't easily pass muster on at least a casual Friday at an office.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Justaguy, what exactly should Ms. Valenti have worn?  My guess from these pictures is that she has a large chest.  What would have been better for her to wear, a mummuu?  A chador?  It may sound like I&#8217;m joking, but I&#8217;m not.  Large-chested women are going to have breasts that stick out if you wear anything even remotely form-fitting, which includes a baggy t-shirt.</p>
<p>Ms. Valenti chose to wear a nice outfit with a modest neckline and cap sleeves.  It is tailored to display her body, yes, but not in anything that wouldn&#8217;t easily pass muster on at least a casual Friday at an office.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
