links are broken.

Just a heads up.

It's really too bad in an age where women all over the world are being killed, raped, and treated as dispensable that there are women attacking women for providing this information to the larger public in a forum that doesn't pass muster of some imaginary feminist ideal.
That's sad. I've told so many people (male and female) about this site because I think it provides the type of information that all of us need. To all of the women of feministing, I hope you keep doing what you're doing with your head held high.

I'm quite humored that HuffPo, the most overblown, self-important blog in the mod-left sphere, dares to take a quasi pot-shot at a blog that, at least, presents a pretty darn authentic take on its material and its contributors.

Links fixed, thanks for the heads up. And thanks lobbyme; we do.

Snap.

This absurd non-controversy isn't dead yet? Guess it was a slow news day for Liz Funk.

Actually, the part about the article that was most frustrating to me was the pretense to moderation. A feminist who bought Althouse's basic premise is a moderate; Althouse's hatchet job is dignified with terms like "some people..."; the entire event was about a serious debate about Jessica's posture.

shit, the part of the article most frustrating to me is that she trash talked me! i especially like that she didnt even read my comment or acknowledge my viewpoint, just looked at my typekey profile and made that weird comment acting like the things i choose to do are wrong.

Yeah, dot, that irked me as well. Especially since it seeme to just come out of nowhere. It's as if Funk got a little fixated on you or something.

Aren't all feminists trying to reclaim our bodies and sexuality from patriarchal objectification and stereotyping based on how we dress and the sex organs we were born with? To turn those very devices of oppression and judgement on another feminist is an UNfeminist and hypocritical thing to do. The recent critics of Jessica's photo and feministing.com are essentially saying that although it's NOT okay for men to judge and degrade us based on what we wear, it IS okay for "real" feminist women to apply preconceived notions of purity, albeit ideological, and judgements about intelligence and leadership based on appearance. With so many hateful and powerful people set out to cripple the efforts and progress of feminism, can we please focus on what we have in common, instead of petty insults and superficial criticism?

Obviously it is very threatening to have a strong, intelligent woman (and she’s attractive too, we get it!) living in her body without shame.

On second thought, maybe they’re right, maybe we should make having breasts while at a luncheon, posing for a picture, or editing a feminist blog an official crime. Jessica, if you do not begin practicing the feminist art of breast-binding and wearing suits, your closet will be stripped off all items shimmery, lacey, or of a reddish hue, you floozy.

Speaking of, sex is a huge part of feminism. In order for women to be free, we must fight to experience and enjoy our sexuality, and talk about it too! Pretending to be a-sexual is not freeing or fun or feminist.

Based upon Liz's article, I have decided what Feminism is. Feminism means you have to:

Bury your sexuality.
Let people talk about your breasts and never acknowledging them yourself.
Have no sense of humor.
Ban fetish models from posting comments.
Be ugly.
Never turn sidways and smile, not wanting to block the person behind you.
Hate fashion.
Never EVER reclaim stereotypes of women or use them in a parodying manner in your logo.
Wear baggy clothes (or opt for a male-emulating suit - your choice).
Never, EVER, EVER call out sexism lest it be misconstrued as a defense of Paris Hilton.

And above all, Behave.

"Feministing.com consistently posts articles that deride the commoditization of women and educate women on current political issues regarding reproductive rights or women in the workplace (in a cute, bubbly way, of course)."

So using humor and satire is wrong now? What does she think of Jon Stewart? Or is it because this webstite is run by women and aimed predominately (sp?) at women? Perhaps Huffpo should go back and read the blogs about India, Dafur and the one about Zimbabwe, which is only a quick scroll down from this post and try to apply, "cute" and "bubbly" to those. I'm happy there is a place where I can come and read about political, social, and personal issues. Some issues are ridiculous and deserve to be made fun of, others are dead serious and should be taken as such. Why do they feel everything should be taken seriously?

And why the hell are they so worried about women in my generation obsessing over sex? There is a difference between obessing over something and addressing it, which is what the awesome women here do. Of course we talk about sex, sexual roles and sexual politics are what got us here in the first place. And she's put off by the logo for it's "curves"? Where have we heard THAT before? And did she toally miss the finger or just chose to ignore what it obvisously meant to make her point. And the whole, "there are women on her site with breasts"

Really now? Breasts? Protruding from their chests? And these women are post puberty you say? My god, call in the Bill Nye's of the world because this phenomenon will need to be studied so that we can put a stop to them by god!

This reminds me of a post a few months back where women of a country were beating their daughter's breasts down in order to stop having attention drawn to them. I never would have even known that were it not for this website. Is that what it's coming to for women all over, we can't have breasts period?

Would she get upset to go to a blog that focused on the black community's issues that had an aunt jamaima (sp)character giving people the bird? Would she complain that all they talked about was "race"? WTF, man. WTF.

Oh yeah, and this: "When we hear Paris Hilton say, "Feminism: that's hot," we'll know feminists are in trouble. In the meantime, it's probably safe with Feministing."

It's "probably" safe with you? I'm "happy" she "kinda" gives you her stamp of approval but you don't fucking need it. You guys rock.

Oh yeah, I totally come here for the sex and the boobs, NOT! I'm easily turned on, but coming here isn't an erotic highlight of my day, it's an intellectual/political one kind of like dropping in for coffee with some fellow feminists. Besides that, how come suddenly feminists aren't allowed to talk or mention women's bodies and our sexuality? I mean, isn't that the core of feminism? Or am I totally wrong? If I can't talk about my gendered sexual body I don't want to be in this revolution!
Thanks for rockin' on, boobs and all.

Years ago when men brought sex into everything, they were derided as perverst and a web of laws was set up to stop them from speaking and behaving as such. The problem, I think, Liz has is that women have now adopted this behavior after pretty much criminializing it in men.

There's nothing wrong with women being overtly sexual. But when women are in-your-face sexual virtually all the time, that's about power and control, not sex. That also speaks to a certain amount of emotional hysteria on the women's part. And when everything is seuxal, nothing is sexual.

Finally, I don't know how many of you have read about "the glass partition." That has to do with men not wanting to deal with women in office settings at all, due to fear of sex harrassment fear. Women are now not able to form bonds at work that get them ahead. So all of this obsession with sexuality - good and bad -- is impacting women negatively.

Again, this is about power and control: We want to flaunt ourselves but you're not allowed to comment or you lose your job. We want to behave however and you're not allowed to judge.
This was awful behavior when men did it in the 1970s and it remains awful behavior when women do it.

Nytendaberry, The glass Ceiling as it is known, is not to protect men against acusations of sex harassment, but to keep women out of top class, high paying, powerful jobs that idiots prefer to reserve for men. As to the rest of your post, are you Really that daft?

Oh, Liz Funk. Without you, how would I ever know that my breasts are bad, naughty and un-feminist, and that I ought to be ashamed of them?

P.S. Also, I don't know much about Yale's Sex Week... but Funk mentions as if it was some sort of a Gen Y week-long orgy or pornofest or something, when according to its website (www.sexweekatyale.com) its purpose is "to challenge students’ conceptions of sex and sexuality and question the way sex is presented in our society." I dunno, sounds pretty darn feminist to me. Just like Feministing. Funny how that works.

NYTendaberry says:
“The problem, I think, Liz has is that women have now adopted this behavior after pretty much criminializing it in men.�
Just what are you talking about?!

“That has to do with men not wanting to deal with women in office settings at all, due to fear of sex harrassment fear.� By “dealing with women� you mean grabbing their asses and that kind of stuff?

“Women are now not able to form bonds at work that get them ahead.� Yeah, it is too bad that I can’t really get ahead by giving a few blowjobs any more!

Great response.

Funk doesn't endorse Althouse's take in that article, though obviously she gives it way too much play, and though the Nyhan-esque on-the-other-handism is bad enough.

Mostly I don't think Funk reads blogs--not just because she mischaracterizes this site, but mainly because she seems to be unaware of what a piece of work Althouse is.

Did anyone read Liz Funk's bio?

"She writes a blog on young feminism for the Albany, NY newspaper the Times Union and a sex column for The Pace Press." (Emphasis added.) Also she's "a recent inductee to 'the REAL Hot 100.'"

So she writes about sex and advertises that she's been recognized by the site for her feminist work, yet wants to take the site down a notch as frivolous? WTF?

Indeed, Aireanne. There are lots of jealous people out there.