Jessica Valenti is painting herself as a victim of a harassment campaign ostensibly run by Ann Athouse -- all because a photograph of her wearing a tight-fitting casual sweater in front of Bill Clinton generated controversy:

One website, run by law professor and occasional New York Times columnist Ann Althouse, devoted an entire article to how I was "posing" so as to "make [my] breasts as obvious as possible". The post, titled "Let's take a closer look at those breasts," ended up with over 500 comments. Most were about my body, my perceived whorishness, and how I couldn't possibly be a good feminist because I had the gall to show up to a meeting with my breasts in tow. One commenter even created a limerick about me giving oral sex. Althouse herself said that I should have "worn a beret . . . a blue dress would have been good too". All this on the basis of a photograph of me in a crew-neck sweater from Gap.

I won't even get into the hundreds of other blogs and websites that linked to the "controversy." It was, without doubt, the most humiliating experience of my life - all because I dared be photographed with a political figure.

But a picture does seem to be considered enough reason to go on a harassment rampage.

(Via Glenn's link to Ann Althouse.)

Anyway, it just so happens that I'm one of "the hundreds of other blogs and websites" Jessica Valenti mentioned. And because that presumably makes me part of the "harassment rampage," I thought I should revisit my post, and see just how harassing I was.

True, I did criticize Valenti's attire (which I do think was inappropriate) but I reserved the lion's share of the criticism for the male bloggers:

Notice that the woman who has drawn all the criticism is not the only woman in the picture. I'm probably a bit old-fashioned where it comes to attire but if I'd been invited I'd have definitely worn a suit. [Right! I'm about as old fashioned as Glenn Reynolds and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga.]

I notice only a few of the men are wearing suits. For his part, Bill Clinton is, which means that he wasn't considering this a casual, shirtsleeves, wear-a-T-shirt, barbecue type of event. It's a professional lunch at a professional location, with a former two-term President of the United States who is still actively involved in politics. Like him or not, that's what he is. To not wear a suit to that is just violative of the most basic protocol. If you ask me, a higher percentage of the men in that picture are worse dressers than are the women.

I can't see their feet, though, so I don't know whether they are wearing flipflops. If they are, I'd feel about the same way I do about the tight fitting shirt.

In fact, there's no way that anything I say here could constitute harassment against anyone. To harass someone requires contacting them. Because no one is required to read this blog, nothing I say here would be harassment. To harass someone I would have to contact that person by means of an email or unwanted comment -- especially after being told to stop. Opinions expressed at someone's own blog (even sexist opinions) cannot legally be considered harassment of another blogger. I realize, though, that there are some people who think that disagreement is harassment, and I certainly hope Ms. Valenti does not fall into that category.

While I continue to maintain that she behaved in a disrespectful manner by dressing in a sloppy manner, there's the further issue of disrespect towards the feminism she claims to uphold. I don't believe in imposing standards of modesty on people, but common sense suggests to me that women who claim to dislike male sexism who then pose with a notorious womanizer like Bill Clinton in the manner that Jessica Valenti posed. While there's no crime involved, and I don't advocate burkhas or head scarves, there's an unmistakable flavor of sexuality to this -- especially in the context of Bill Clinton -- and I don't think it's sexist or harassing to point it out.

(BTW, I think a male could behave in an analogous way by wearing pants which displayed his "package." While the message might be lost on Bill Clinton, it wouldn't take too much imagination to come up with examples of powerful people on whom it would not be lost. )

In a post condemning men who blogged in drag, a feminist blogger also complained about Ann Coulter's "mini-shorts":

All of this blogging-in-drag is bewildering and appalling. I just don't understand the prurient interest some have in watching an otherwise impressively credentialed or politically opinionated "woman" degrade "herself" by trivializing her politics or profession. Is this the appeal of watching Ann Coulter in her mini-shorts?

Speaking as a female blogger, who writes a "blawggish" blog at that, I am personally offended. I think these poseurs, cheeky and satiric as they intend to be, bring down the image of serious female bloggers everywhere.

Which brings me back to the title of Ann Althouse post -- "Let's keep talking about breasts."

I agree with Ann Althouse (also see this post by Dr. Helen) that what's being lost by framing the debate this way is the context: Bill Clinton.

(He has to be enjoying a chuckle.)