Ann Althouse has a relatively interesting post about her reaction to a photo of a group that met with former President Clinton, including a “feminist” blogger. The thread, as a whole, is an interesting look at modern feminism (not to mention the state of civility on the internet), I think, but I found this comment the most interesting (Emphasis mine, but the italics are Philo’s quote of something Ann said, if you’re unfamiliar with that convention):

Philo said…

Ann,
I’m judging you by your apparent behavior. It’s not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about.
If you look at the picture you linked to in your first post on Jessica and her breasts you’ll see that at least six other people are looking in the same direction Jessica is looking. As is common in large gatherings there was clearly more than one camera here, hence the picture you see.

As far as I can tell your two posts on Jessica offer nothing more than sheer jealousy that liberal, nay, feminist bloggers are being given space to speak with President Clinton. In t-shirt and jeans no less (though your protestations echo Kurtz, I can’t possibly believe you’re nitpicking as to what people wore to a private meeting with a president).

Your attacks on Jessica are incredibly juvenile. Inane, irrelevant, unconstructive, vacuous, and insulting to the intelligence of anyone who wasted their time reading it. I seriously feel dumber for having read these two posts.

Can you please offer one substantive critique of a feminist blogger, attractive or otherwise, young or otherwise, attending a meeting with Bill Clinton?

I’d note that Jessica is probably the youngest blogger there. Her presence is a sign of stature and her brilliance. She is deserving of praise for breaking into a meeting defined by middle-aged men and women.

3:18 PM, September 15, 2006

Y’know, I’m not a fan of Bill Clinton, for reasons that go far beyond the simple fact that I disagreed wholeheartedly with any number of his policy decisions. But if I were invited to a luncheon with him, I’d wear a suit or not go. As a later commenter (Seven Machos) said, “I can’t believe that you would not wear your best, most business-like suit to a meeting with any president of any country, present or past, whether you like the person or don’t.”

Is it terribly old fashioned of me to think that that’s so obvious that it shouldn’t have needed to be said?