News Blog Comments
Issue really is that the ad is part of a culture industry that uses women as bait for men and as a means to beat down women at the same time. Women were and are a vital part of the discussion at Kos, probably on your site too.
Calling these women names and acting like they need to lighten up is not the right approach, these are your friends in the dem movement, half your constituency, etc.
Doesn't Kos have the opportunity to review the content of ads before they go up? Running something like that as a mistake and apologizing is one thing, people would understand it and move on, but getting irate about people being offended is another thing altogether.
And Kos, for his part, should (and I think does) recognize that his blanket condemnations and nasty response were out of line.
The whacked out freaks talking about coordinated purges and fumigations of the Lefty Blogosphere by the Centrists are just fucking crazy.
The folks who were pissed off by the ad and by Kos' response have a point - to a point...but as I asked them in my diary and have been asking them since - do they think their shit don't stink?
The point here is that Kos is human, and has human failings, blind spots, and prejudices, just like anyone else.
And just like anyone else, when those are pointed out, especially when they are pointed out in accusatory, stentorian, thunderbolts from on high, "you are betraying the progressive cause" style bullshit...humans, any humans, tend to respond defensively and nastily.
So, Kos (and other bloggers) should take a bit of a lesson from this - pick your ads carefully if you can afford to, and pay attention to your user base (the folks who click the links that get you the cash and the ad offers) when choosing to run or not run an ad. If you have a serious question about the ad, ASK US! it is a two-way street.
AND, the readers and participants should take a bit of a lesson from this - we use these sites for free, and until we can pony up the ten grand for a new server and keep the site running directly out of our own pockets, we need to have a bit of flexibility. The proprietors are not perfect, and are human...and our shit stinks just as bad as theirs.
Myself, I am so far to the left that, should I desire, I could probably point out six ways from teusday just how anti-progressive, imperialist, bourgeois salon middle-class privilege selfish little radical retards many of the "offended" set really are...
But I believe in comity and community and cutting people some slack...
Would that others did too.
Word.
I think a lot of the outrage stemmed from some of the more frat-boy-type Kossacks taking Kos's public snit as permission for them to act in an incredibly vitriolic way towards fellow progressives. There were all kinds of immature insults being thrown around: frigid and repressed, menstruating she-devils, man-haters who were too ugly to get laid, the works. Liberal women are used to getting called those sorts of names by the Neanderthals over at Little Green Footballs, but for a bunch of liberal guys, who are supposed to think women are equal to them, to indulge in sexist vitriol, that was a bit much.
I didn't have a problem with the ad, and I agree with Gilly's points that if Kos gets a rep for turning down ads over content, he could well find it difficult to get ads in future. But I felt Kos's reaction was totally over-the-top. Yes, he runs the site, but the site is built upon discussion and dialogue. For him to say that anybody who disagrees with him on this issue is being sanctimious and should just leave, there's no opportunity for dialogue there. Yeah, he took back the 'women's studies set' crack, but it was the kind of remark stereotyping feminist women which I didn't expect to find on a progressive blog. And then the dittoheads got started, attacking the uppity feminists in comments, and it just got really ugly.
It wasn't the ad itself that pissed me off, but Kos's "You're with me or against me, no middle ground" response, and then all the jeering comments. I had seen the ad on various blogs, and thought it was silly, but didn't pay it much heed. Sexually suggestive advertising is all over the place, and that which doesn't turn me on I pretty much just tune out. Incidentally, I'm bisexual, but I like my boobs real, thanks.
I'm done with DailyKos as a result of this brouhaha, even though I didn't think the ad was offensive. The attitudes revealed by the brouhaha, those offended me.
Steve,
All your points about the business aspect of blog ads are relevant to the original (molehill) issue, which was the offensiveness or propriety of the original ad. (My $.02 says tacky, largely inoffensive, I don't give a hoot) But his response to the criticism was all but incitement to demonize and purge anyone who agreed with the original criticism, and lumped by reference, the entire philosophic wing of the women's movement into the stewpot of blame, just to make things interesting.
If Kos really thinks that criticisms of himself or his ads are a good reason to purge people, that's a problem. He could have said, 'Sorry. I'm not going to editorialize my ads for culture-friendliness, it's not practical, nor do I wish to do it.' and been done with the issue. That would have been a 'pound sand' response to the relevant criticism (against the ad and it's placement).
Instead he decided to throw sand at the entire women's movement and suggest that their issues (presumably reproductive control/freedom, laws protecting women from physical abuse, barriers to women's economic and political freedom, etc) and say they weren't important. Now, I don't know how coalitions are built in the republican party, but to declare that the WOMEN's movement is the problem holding the democrats back from tackling such important issues (presumably Social Security and Foreign affairs, also, if his blog is an indication, Central American relations) is about as stupid as the pro-war conservative Dems trying to argue that the anti-war Dems are part of the problem even while the war continues to grind into more and more painful futility.
Kos and other sites have pointed to the divisiveness and willingness to shoot each other as a big part of the problem holding Democrats back. Apparently, within his own little bloggy microcosm, Kos would rather be part of that problem than to address or even ignore criticisms.
Raincitygirl,
Look, you blame Kos for the bandwagoning behavior of about 20 or 30 idiots on a site that gets 14 million visits a week?
Kos is human.
I suspect that Kos got some really nasty, vitriolic, holier-than-thou, and yes, sanctimonious bullshit emails and attacks...and responded defensively, nastily, and stupidly.
That 20 or 30 assholes with computers jumped into the game and stirred up a shitstorm should not surprise you given the degree of trolling and instigation that goes on there.
That Kos is human should not surprise you either.
And that some folks took it upon themselves to define what feminism meant, what being a progressive meant, and what "qualifying" as a progressive entails - when they have no fucking right and no fucking clue as to what that really means also should not surprise you.
Finally, but it was the kind of remark stereotyping feminist women which I didn't expect to find on a progressive blog. reveals a dangerous degree of naivete and illusionary magical thinking.
"Progressives" are human. We all have demons, we were all raised in a very anti-progressive environment. I am an anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-imperialist of the finest water...and yet, going out to play in the park in the Bronx with my daughter...well, let's just say that you NEVER escape the stereotypes once they are instilled.
I hate to say this, but you really need to get the stars out of your eyes - there is not, nor will there ever be a perfect progressive site, person, or movement.
Michael,
Bullshit.
... his response to the criticism was all but incitement to demonize and purge anyone who agreed with the original criticism, and lumped by reference, the entire philosophic wing of the women's movement into the stewpot of blame, just to make things interesting.
His response was exasperated anger at a few folks who were pushing his buttons, accusing him of being a sexist anti-progressive pig, and of being part of a conspiracy to fumigate the lefty blogosphere. I've seen the paranoid ranting they are producing, and it is fucking nuts. If they directed the same garbage at me, I would probably respond the same way...and regret that response too - just like Kos.
If Kos really thinks that criticisms of himself or his ads are a good reason to purge people, that's a problem.
More bullshit.
Show me the "purge" - show me the people denied posting or diary priveleges as a result of their stance on this issue. Show me the mass bannings, erasures of comments or diaries, the erasure of links to site that are now quite critical (some to the point of insanity) of Kos and Daily Kos.
There is no evidence for any kind of purge, and trying to call this event a purge is ridiculous on its face.
Instead he decided to throw sand at the entire women's movement and suggest that their issues (presumably reproductive control/freedom, laws protecting women from physical abuse, barriers to women's economic and political freedom, etc) and say they weren't important.
Even more bullshit.
RIGHT NOW on the front page, are a series of posts taking this issue head on, with honesty and openness.
Kos makes no secret of his personal view, and then goes on to explicitly proclaim his own support for the Right to Choose based on his belief in the fundamental right to Privacy, even though he, personally, finds abortion abhorrent.
There is NO evidence for the blanket condemnations you are casting around - none.
Palabra!
Dan,
Armando offering a bland, let's listen to each other and get along post isn't Kos admitting making an ass of himself in his original reaction.
Inviting people who don't like what he has to say to fuck off and leave is permission amd incitement for exactly the kind of nastiness that followed by 'loyal' kossacks in the comments. If you don't like that characterization perhaps you'd like to tell me what word I should have used instead of 'gulag' to express the 'don't let the door hit you' sentiment his post expresses. He demonized his critics, and his very defensiveness to the criticism suggests that they may well have had a point.
Finally, his current attempt to categorize all democratic issues according to his personal is spurious to your argument (I didn't say he wasn't a Dem, I said he was an asshole Dem who is deliberately schismatic to uppity women). That he includes abortion rights under PRIVACY concerns is simply more evidence that he neither likes nor undersands the women's movement's values. Abortion is important because women need to have PERSONAL LIBERTY over their body and reproduction. (And if you don't think LIBERTY is a primary American, much less democratic value, I'm not sure how to even start a conversation on the topic)
I'm reminded of a scene in Little Women where intellectuals are making the case that women should have franchise because they are morally superior to men, and Jo rebuts that women should have franchise because they are morally indistinguishable from men.
People who are squeamish about advocating for Abortion rights, on it's own face either have not reconciled themselves to the scientific fact that for a good part of the gestational period, the foetus is not something capable of human life, nor does treating as such make sense. Or they believe that women should forfeit control over their own bodies unless a moral case can be made to the contrary.
But the real issue which Kos seems unaware of, on the abortion issue, on the women's rights in the democratic party issue, etc, is the optics. Even after one semester of a women's studies elective, I was flaberghasted by the degree to which women's bodies are violated, manipulated, regulated and controlled, throughout the world, as 'cultural values' issues. If aborition is murder, then forced sterilization ought to be treated as mass murder, since the potential lives destroyed are even vaster. If destruction of fertilized eggs is murder then we have to shut down in vitro fertilization operations because they too are mass murderers.
Kos doesn't value women's issues, and his comments made his attitude about the importance of his critics to him rather explicit. Steve points out that Kos is a businessman. Well most businessmen know that if you respond to a customer criticising something they don't like about the store by throwing them out and calling them names, it's a good bet you'll never have that customer again. It's also a good bet that that customer will warn his or her friends off too.
Maybe Kos is big enough that he doesn't need the people he's pissing off with his confrontational attitude. But, if as Steve points out, his IS a business, then driving off the customers is less food on his family's table. I guess that's his business.
Look, you blame Kos for the bandwagoning behavior of about 20 or 30 idiots on a site that gets 14 million visits a week?
I don't blame Kos personally, they have to take responsibility for their own bad behaviour. But since the interactivity is a large part of why I used to visit DailyKos, I won't be going back because those idiots made me feel unwelcome. I'd rather read blogs where I'm not liable to get attacked for no better reason than I have a vagina if I decide to post a comment.
Finally, but it was the kind of remark stereotyping feminist women which I didn't expect to find on a progressive blog. reveals a dangerous degree of naivete and illusionary magical thinking.
"Progressives" are human. We all have demons, we were all raised in a very anti-progressive environment. I am an anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-imperialist of the finest water...and yet, going out to play in the park in the Bronx with my daughter...well, let's just say that you NEVER escape the stereotypes once they are instilled.
I hate to say this, but you really need to get the stars out of your eyes - there is not, nor will there ever be a perfect progressive site, person, or movement.
I don't think I'm engaging in 'magical thinking'. Look, I get fucking tired of the crap that gets thrown at a woman who identifies herself as a feminist, pro-choice, and queer. When I'm on a progressive, liberal blog, I'd like that to be a place where I don't get that same crap thrown at me as I do other places. So I pick the blogs where I want to hang out based in part on the atmosphere. I want respectful debate, not name-calling. It's a reason I don't ever click the comments at Atrios, because there are always vicious trolls saying ugly things.
Say you were in a meeting of registered Democrats in, say, New York circa the time the Civil Rights bill was being introduced. And people started saying pushing civil rights for black people might cause the party to lose. And a bunch of people jumped in and started using racist epithets. How would you feel? Wouldn't you feel a little surprised, a little betrayed?
Look, I'm not that naive. I know Kos isn't perfect, and nor is any blogger, or any human being, for that matter. But I expect some degree of respect from the people who are allegedly on the same side I am, the people who want to throw the anti-feminist, anti-choice, anti-queer party out of office. I don't expecct everyone to agree with me, but respect means not being called names. And if I don't get that respect, I can take Kos's advice and find somewhere else to hang out where disagreements don't generally turn into excuses to throw hurtful insults.
Michael,
You are mapping your own interpretation onto what transpired and how.
You are inserting your imagined and constructed motives into a situation.
You are now interpreting everything you read on the site through that lens, and refusing to consider alternate interpretations.
And you call yourself a "progressive"?
People who are squeamish about advocating for Abortion rights, on it's own face either have not reconciled themselves to the scientific fact that for a good part of the gestational period, the foetus is not something capable of human life, nor does treating as such make sense.
And people who talk about this subject this way have not spent time holding their girlfriend's hand while the abortion was done, and the subsequent 6 months of emotional pain.
I am adamantly, passionately pro-choice. I and my partner made a choice, and I, for one, would make the same choice if I were in the same situation.
But don't preach to me about what I did or did not feel, and what my partner did or did not feel, because YOU don't have a clue what we felt, how we dealt, and what it was like.
People who put things the way you do have not spent 15 years working in a Family Planning clinic. When I was in HS, my mom was a director of a FP clinic, and I spent a lot of time at the office after school, reading, talking with the staffers, learning, watching.
Kos doesn't value women's issues, and his comments made his attitude about the importance of his critics to him rather explicit.
Bullshit.
He does not know about women's issues. He stuck his foot deep in his mouth, he over-reacted, and like a normal human, got very defensive.
I read those threads and the diaries, and saw the vitriol and bile spewed out there, and noted that the bulk of it is attributable to less than 30 people (assuming no double registrations, etc).
Is there grounds for being pissed at Kos for being a dork, being insensitive, being a bit of an ass on this subject?
You bet.
Is it an attempt to purge, hijack, fumigate, or otherwise control the debate to clear the way for anti-choice candidates?
That's just fucking crazy.
Whaaaah..whaaaahhh!!!
I'm all for girls wrapped in Whipped Cream and Other Delights.
But I thought the Professor was hot.
I don't understand how any woman couldn't at least think about gettin' nekkid for money.
It's a good thing I got banned from dKos, because if I had to weigh in on this crap, I'd say, "Fuck you. Fuck off. You are full of shit." etc.
One of my favorite writers, Cynthia Heimel, said something like, "If women had auxiliary sex organs in their eyes, you'd see naked men alongside the meatloaf reciipes in Ladies Home Journal.
OT: Steve what do you make of this:
http://www.iranmania.com/News/Ar...rrent%
20Affairs
Iran hit by wave of bombings, blames US
Monday, June 13, 2005 - ©2005 IranMania.com
LONDON, June 13 (IranMania) - Iran was struck by a wave of deadly bombings in this restive southwestern city and the capital Sunday, with the Islamic regime accusing US-backed "terrorists" of seeking to destabilise the country just days ahead of presidential elections, according to AFP.
At least eight people were killed and 75 wounded by a series of four blasts outside several public buildings in Ahvaz, an ethnic Arab majority city close to the Iraqi border that is capital of oil-rich Khuzestan province.
Later Sunday, another blast hit a busy square in Tehran, killing two people and seriously wounding at least two others, official media said.
Two smaller home-made bombs were reported to have exploded in other parts of the capital, without causing any casualties.
"The terrorists of Ahvaz infiltrated Iran from the region of Basra" in southern Iraq, top national security official Ali Agha Mohammadi told AFP.
"These terrorists have been trained under the umbrella of the Americans in Iraq," he charged, adding that Iran suspected British troops across the border might also have links to the separatist group -- the London-based Ahvaz Arab People's Democratic-Popular Front.
"We call on the Americans and the British to condemn these attacks and hand over the terrorists in Iraq. Sadly, they have so far not said anything," Mohammadi said.
He said "several terrorists have been arrested", but gave no further details.
Ahvaz was hit by several days of ethnic unrest in April, with the 26-year-old Islamic regime then blaming "counter-revolutionaries".
Iran's main armed opposition group, the People's Mujahedeen, is based across the border in Iraq, and Mohammadi said he believed they were involved in some of Sunday's attacks in Tehran.
"The calls for a boycott of the vote had failed, so the terrorist groups based in Iraq are trying to use attacks to disrupt the election and prevent a strong voter participation," he said.
Iran is due to go to the polls to elect a new president on Friday.
"The attacks are a failure, because in the past the regime has been confronted by far worse," said Khuzestan's deputy governor, Gholam Reza Shariati.
An AFP reporter in Ahvaz said the area around the local governor's office, one of three public buildings targeted, was strewn with shards of glass and rubble.
Scores of police had sealed off the area, and by early evening municipal workers were already clearing the scene and mopping up pools of blood.
"It was inhuman, a horrible thing. There was a small child walking around looking for his dead mother," said Abdol Hossein Kord-Zanghaneh, a male nurse at an Ahvaz hospital where many of the casualties were taken.
"This is an American plot," he said, adding that many of the wounded had suffered concussion and blown ear drums.
The huge blasts occurred between 9:00 am and 11:00 am (0430 to 0630 GMT), hitting the governor's office, two other public buildings and a residential area which is home to the director of state television operations in Ahvaz.
The explosion in Tehran occurred at Imam Hossein square, interior ministry spokesman Jahanbaksh Khanjani told AFP. Witnesses said the blast was heard after 8:00 pm (1530 GMT), adding the bomb was hidden in a rubbish bin.
Ahvaz, situated 500 kilometres (320 miles) southeast of Tehran and 50 kilometres (32 miles) from the Iraqi border, was rocked by ethnic violence from April 15-18.
According to official figures, five people were killed in those clashes, which appeared to have been sparked by a forged letter, dating back seven years and attributed to then vice president Mohammad Ali Abtahi, calling for changes to Khuzestan's ethnic make-up.
On Friday, Iran is due to go the polls to elect a successor to reformist President Mohammad Khatami.
Informal opinion polls in the Iranian press suggest that none of the eight candidates will be able to secure the more than 50 percent of the vote needed to win. That means the top two would have to go into a run-off -- unprecedented in the 26-year history of the Islamic republic.
Tipped as the frontrunner is powerful ex-president and pragmatic conservative Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Trailing him are the main reformist candidate Mostafa Moin and the hardline former national police chief, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf.
The close-run campaign has been heating up, with regular reports of politicians suffering violent attacks.
But Iran vowed it would "shame" the United States by drawing a huge turnout in the polls and disprove predictions of a voter boycott. The United States has dismissed the election as rigged.
Raincitygirl,
No serious arguments on that front - go where you feel comfortablee...but don't turn it into some conspiracy or purge, as some are doing, and don't forget that the formation of a hostile atmosphere is easily done by a small number of people. That hostile atmosphere is attributable in part to Kos being dumb and overreacting...and in part to about 20 or 30 bandwagoners and or shit-stirrers.
Say you were in a meeting of registered Democrats in, say, New York circa the time the Civil Rights bill was being introduced. And people started saying pushing civil rights for black people might cause the party to lose. And a bunch of people jumped in and started using racist epithets. How would you feel? Wouldn't you feel a little surprised, a little betrayed?
Actually, your example serves to make my point. That kind of shit happend all the time both within the Democratic Party and within the "progressive" movements of the time...there were HUGE fights over exactly that.
The point however, is that in the face of such examples of resistance, even from supposed (or real, if flawed) allies, the civil rights marchers, workers, and fighters did not leave, did not give in, and did not take up the invitations to do so because their mission was more important than their feeling of comfort or the like or dislike of the people they were working with.
hamletta?
Hi!
couldn't care less about the show, don't pay attention to the ads. what made me gasp is kos himself being dismissive and snide about the "women studies set". yes, he apologized but the comment was telling in of itself. how would he feel if we attempted to marginalize him by dismissing him as the "chicano studies set"?
oh well, there are more pressing concerns than sexism, right? kos isn't the only one who brushes this issue aside. still haven't figured out why racism is worthy of getting up on your hind legs about but women getting degraded doesn't warrant a snifle.
bigotry is bigotry. we gotta stand up for each other in this fight even when it's not our ox being gored.
you overstate you case with the ads. kos isn't going to dry up and blow away if he refuses one ad. you seem to be arguing kos should put up any ads that come down the line. does he have no standards? what would he find unacceptable? would he run an ad for fox news or an ad for g. gordon liddy? why refuse those but not this? what do you mean he can't run an ad for rush limbaugh?!? he's got a kid to feeeeed!
dont' get me wrong, i want kos to survive, but i also know when i'm being worked over with an appeal to emotion. kos isn't going to live or die by this one ad.
plus, granted, my circle of blogs i surf is small, but i didn't see this pie ad anywhere else. i maybe wrong, but it looked to me like kos solicited this ad. people took issue with the show in the diaries and then all of a sudden an ad for the show appears? it wasn't there before when the issue was first raised up.
hello,
the ad ran on Pandagon and several other sites.
and yes, bigotry is bigotry...
But don't you think that it is possible that some folks got very, very nasty about this without, possibly considering that just because they see it, others might not, and that possibly savaging one's allies before asking might be in order?
And Kos, for his part, should (and I think does) recognize that his blanket condemnations and nasty response were out of line.
I haven't seen any indication at all that Kos feels what he said was out of line. In fact, it seems that his position has become even more entrenched.
It strikes me as strange that lefty bloggers, who are often very quick to criticize politicians and organizations for dealing with/taking money from/patronizing groups they (the bloggers) despise, react angrily when similar criticisms are aimed at them. (Bloggers have also slammed politicians (like the despicable Santorum) for taking money from businesses that sell things the pols disagree with publicly, such as cable companies that provide hardcore porn.) This is a case of sauce for the goose. It isn't consistent to make this sort of argument against others, then squeal like a pig being pulled away from the trough when people make the same sort of argument against one's own business arrangements.
Is making money the only principle that really matters to Kos and other bloggers? This is a serious question. Kos seems to be so committed to that principle that he was more than willing to alienate and possibly drive away a significant number of people for it. If money is the only real bottom line for him, he should rethink his strategy. In the long run, driving people off will affect the amount of money he makes from his ads. Fewer viewers equals less money from advertisers.
Which brings up another question: If Kos begins to see his pageviews decline due to this and similar controversies, would he change his stance(s) to stop the loss of visitors and the revenue he gains from them? Since money from ad revenue seems to be a guiding principle for him, well, I wonder....
I've been posting a bit on this and paying attention to what other bloggers are saying, and allow me to just reiterate that it is NOT the ad that most people have a problem with; it's Kos's cavalier dismissal of the "women's studies set."
It was the attitude in his response to a concern that, while you might not agree with it, was perfectly reasonable, that really upset people. Especially coming on the heels of comments made by Kos that gave the impression that he sees the choice issue as somehow negotiable.
Steve sums it up wonderfully in the last paragraph.
Seriously. Ya don't like the ad, bitch to TBS.
it's Kos's cavalier dismissal of the "women's studies set
Which he apologized for.
Especially coming on the heels of comments made by Kos that gave the impression that he sees the choice issue as somehow negotiable.
Which he has made very clear in subsequent posts that he does NOT.
This was my initial response to this flap, and it remains my gut level response:
Who among us can pretend to know it all?
Who among us is purer?
Who among us has the courage to stand up and say that they know best on any or every issue?
Who among us can connect ALL the dots?
Who among us can claim that they got their shit correct on every issue?
Who among us gets their nose out of joint, their balls in a sling, their panties in a twist when someone else steps on their issue, drowns out their voice, hammers their fave pol, curses their pet kitten, or denigrates their pet conspiracy theory?
Cut the shit.
You think you're perfect?
You think your shit don't stink?
You think you got the numbers lined up, you got the answers, you got the clues, and if only everyone would toe your line, everything would work out fine?
You think NARAL issues are the thing?
Fuck NARAL - they got nothin'.
You think it's all about ACLU NAACP AFLCIO NOW WILPF IWW ISO DNC DLC?
Fuck them - they got nothin'.
You think it's about women's issues or wymyn's issues, or men's issues or the inner child or the inner man who is a women, or masculinity issues or gender issue or black, african-american neeeegroe hispanic latino jewish WASP asian islander issues?
Fuck them - they got nothin'.
You know what it's about.
It's about people. It's about bleeding, shitting, farting, pissing, swearing, imperfect, impure, offensive, incorrect, rude, egotistical, flawed, living fucking PEOPLE.
It's not about your goddamned issue.
It's not about your stupid plan, or mine.
It's not about who's got the best fucking definition of the insurgency, or the best way to tell the chicks to shut the fuck up, or tell the dicks to go fuck themselves or tell the spics to vote D and otherwise get back to work, or tell the hicks to stop beating their meat and beating their wives, or tell...well...you should get the picture by now.
Take your fucking perfection and choke on it.
You're perfect?
bullshit.
You've noticed a disturbing trend here on kos lately?
Fuck off.
Get to work.
Kos said something that made you angry?
So - tell him so. Tell us so. Many of us think what he said was pretty dumb. I'll bet he thinks it was pretty dumb, and I'll bet his wife does too...
So? He knows, we know, and you know...either leave, or stay, but for god's sake, shut the fuck up and stop with the histrionics, conniptions, fits, passive aggressive theatrics, and holier than thou posturing.
People are dying, shot to pieces, bleeding to death, shitting themselves in the dirt and screaming for momma.
People are starving, begging, scrabbling and scraping.
People are looking for someone, anyone, to figure out how to get people together and figure this shit out and make things as right as we can make them as quickly as we can get it done....
and you're worried about your precious issue.
You think I'm not guilty of the same fucking thing?
I am.
So?
Fuck me too.
But cut the shit - leave or stay, but cut the shit.
Some men got pissed about it too, Steve. Perhaps just some people got upset about it.
Hey, I got pissed about the ad AND the response.
But then I remembered that I am not perfect, and that perhaps I should not expect Kos (or Steve or ANYONE) to be perfect either.
Many men are sexist...and they don't even know it. And when they get called on it, they just DON'T understand why what they said or did is sexist.
Or racist.
Or classist.
Or imperialist.
Or...
See?
Perhaps "abortion" goes under "privacy" because "Roe v. Wade" was decided on 9th Amendment grounds. Indexing is arbitrary; IIRC a character in Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle" claimed that she could analyze a writer's character by his index.
As a libertine liberal, I'm incapable of being offended by any of this. I think Kos would have been better served by Gilliard's sensibility than his own, though.
I'd rather read blogs where I'm not liable to get attacked for no better reason than I have a vagina if I decide to post a comment.
Is that what happens at Kos? Someone with an identifiably feminine handle posts regarding, say, setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and that individual is immediately "attacked for no better reason than that (she has) a vagina"?
I've never seen that.
RedDan, I do understand that no one is perfect, and I don't expect them to be. But reading this post, some things jump out, and they irk me.
"Some women got pissed at Kos for running a TBS ad of two women throwing pies at each other. What I don't think the women understand is that it's not a simple matter of refusing ads."
Like I said above, some men got upset, too.
"Look, this isn't a game. You don't get to make your little points for free."
I've been a supporter of Kos for a while, had a paid subscription for a long time, changed usernames and subscribed again, though it is now expired. How long must I subscribe before I can make "my little points"?
I could not mention the little irritating things - after all, these are not exactly earth shattering. But they are indicative of an underlying attitude, and I feel they do need to be pointed out.
Thank you Raincity and M. McLawhorn for stating things so clearly for a lot of disaffected ex/Kossians.
And Steve, for me, it wasn't necesarily the ad, it was Kos' responses. They did not reflect maturity, respect, or patience. Of course, I figured that at $700 a pop, he was entitled for the nation's most popular political blog. I hated the ad everytime visited the blog, but I could count the days until it was time to come down. His responses, though, was certainly a highly disappointing performance. Even women who were a part of the fight last Sunday are saying, if he had only said thus and so, my buttons wouldn't have been pushed and I would have respected his views. But he (and others) said this, this, and this, and I couldn't this shyt any longer and I fired back.
There was no excuse imaginable for him popping off in such a manner, even if he had gotten a stream of e-mails off blog. Or that he was under pressure. It just shows me, money or not, where his ass actually sits. That letter castigating Carol Darr was appalling, too. I saw it on Americablog and I swear my mouth forgot to close. No matter if these people are anti-Kos or have a game plan against liberal blogs: just don't leave or give these fuckers a crack through which the flood could arrive. Be oppositional--that's right. But that letter was stupid, which is why it was leaked. You've got to be business with these people; if you wanna say fuck you, then there are ways to say it without *actually* uttering the expletive. And he blew this one, too.
The sermonizing about NARAL being single-issue, and other women's concerns being relegated to the back burner or deemed "special interest" at DK were also issues with the women involved and not a few guys. The ad response was, in effect, the feather that broke the camel's back. Sorry, but to me, it was a split and it was a purge. You can't change my mind about that aspect, because I have seen stuff like this before, live and in color, and not online when you can't see your adversaries face to face and you can't measure the discount.
All this has reverberated across the country. Don't get me wrong. No, I think some people have long memories about this kind of thing where others may not. No, in my view, this is not an example of the Dem circular firing squad or Dems bickering as usual. You have a right to support your friend, Steve. Yeah, you can diss me about how I don't respect Kos or his choices.
However, Kos has shown his limits.
And I for sure have mine.
I stayed away from the pie fight threads -- way too PC and un-PC for me, all at the same time.
I did end up clicking on the ad -- but never saw the video online. The 60 second directors cut seemed best, but it was only available after 10 pm. I saw a short version of the ad on TBS, and it was nothing much -- the still photos were a lot more expressive in the soft core department.
Which about sums up whole thing -- this was a soft core spoof, and it seemed funny enough to me. I'm not into porn, beyond thumbing through a occasional lad mag or the SI swimsuit edition. That stuff may be un-PC, but it's a part of the culture. Sex and nudity are part of the culture. Sex and the City is part of the culture.
It's not good or bad, but it's there -- deal with it.
On the other hand, I'm not keen on dKos comment threads -- there's often a boys fight club attitude, that I find fairly offensive. That's okay -- I deal with it by ignoring it.
As for the Women's Studies POV: in my 20's, I considered myself a feminist -- but gave it up and started calling myself a humanist, when I saw the ways that feminism dis-empowers women. By changing sexuality and sexual identity into sexual exploitation, feminism turns women into humorless and fearful victims. Or so it seemed at the time.
I have nothing against Women's Studies or Feminism, but if something that is relatively minor turns you off, just walk away from it.
I laughed at the ad but I thought Kos reacted badly. A simple "TBS just paid my mortgage for the next 5 months" would have sufficed.
I don't think it's that easy just to go after the people who made the ad. For instance if you wanted to shut down porn (doubtful), you wouldn't just charge the studio, you'd have to take on the distributor as well.
These folks voiced their concern. I like Kos but the discussion board that particular day seemed like a Free Republic knock off. Kos apologized, some others on that board need to do the same thing but to me the important thing remains beating the Repubs in 2006. I know we all agree with that one.
It's like the Howard Dean thing in a way. Argue after you win the fight, not during.
You missed the point, Steve, which is that most of us didn't give two shits about the ad, but we really, really don't like the whole, "Women can sit down and shut up now" thing that's going on.
Raincitygirl,
Respect is a two-way street. It isn't just validating your concerns and making you feel better. Before you start namecalling because you're pissed about a silly ad, think about what you're really doing.
Betrayed? Are you an adult? Are you serious? It's a blog. You're an adult, you don't like something someone says, call them on it and let it go. Don't whine because Kos said something you didn't agree with.
My God, some people get their backs up over stupid shit. I bet your boyfriend could bullshit you blind before you got this angry. Oh, that's my "friend". And you'd accept it until the light went on in your head.
So come on. It was an ad. You didn't get the response you wanted to hear. So what? Are you really that fragile that you have to be protected from contrary opinion?
Hello,
Before you form an opinion, please ask.
Kos doesn't have time to solicit ads. They come to him. TBS picked a series of sites to run that ad on, including Atrios I think.
Ok, who here works 80 hours a week for themselves?
What you had is a lot of people talking about an issue they didn't understand. Oh, he's a sexist, oh he was nasty.
Grow up.
You are free to work 80 hours a week and start your own blog and deal with issues in your own way.
Now, I disagreed with the NARAL bashing on Kos and said so. A lot of the same people had no problem jumping on NARAL for making their own political choices, choices I defend.
But here's the deal: we do a LOT of stuff you don't see and to get lectured on an ad would piss me off to no end. It's easy to sit behind a desk, with a steady paycheck and talk about being offended and handling things badly. Or not respecting people.
After all, you can afford to be offended.
None of these women had the decency to ask how the ad got there or who to complain to. Nope. It was validate my feelings time. Make me feel better like it was a fucking therapy session.
Oh men are sexist.
No shit. Deal with it and stop acting like you're owed something because mommy and daddy kissed your ass and your professors, when not trying to fuck you, catered to your nonsense.
People have opinions. They are not going to be your opinions. Now, you have a choice, we can play Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea and demand ideological correctness or we can act like adults and work for a common goal.
My bet is that the people who are pissing and moaning would, in the same situation, make similar choices and piss people off. And act even worse in dealing with them.
Some of us do work for ourselves at eighty hors a week, thank you very fucking much.
All we feel "owed" is basic human respect.
Amanda Marcotte,
To be honest, those women needed to shut the fuck up, because it was all about them, not the site or the ad. It was about a silly ad offending them.
The kind of near psycho-theraputic responses were so over the top you have to wonder what the fuck some of them were thinking.
A lot of people want to win, but only if their petty concerns are repsected. Now sexism isn't a petty concern, but all this outrage over an ad is just fucking silly and reflects far worse on the women doing the screaming than Kos.
cclough,
It's a fucking ad for a TV show. Not a call for women to work at the Bunny Ranch or make porn. Or find Russian wives.
Here's reality: you aren't owed shit. Not one fucking thing. You want respect, go earn it. Stop whining about a small ad which got your back up. Your whining makes you look exactly like the right depicts feminists: humorless scolds.
And for those saying that it "wasn't about th ad" - bullshit.
I read the initial diary and just about every thread associated...
And it WAS "just about the ad." The folks (not just women) who were upset about the ad were (and remain) up in arms about the ad - the fact that they got a response that stunned them a bit just adds to their anger.
Now, make no mistake - I thought the ad was tasteless, stupid, and sexist.
And I thought that Kos' response to criticism was pretty lame.
But I know why it happened.
And I know why the ad was let through.
And I ALSO know why people were upset...and why they were even more upset at the response to criticism.
It's part self-validation, part genuine outrage and anger, part "status of victim-hood" and part self-justifying holier than thou bullshit.
Meanwhile, our nation is being led by certified war criminals who lied this nation into a war concocted out of whole cloth...
hundreds of thousands of people are dead - our soldiers have died for a LIE, and innocent Iraqis murdered by fire from the skies - our military is in a shambles and our economy in ruins, and Iraq lies in ruins and the middle east in flames.
It's not that one "issue" is more IMPORTANT it's that some issues are more IMMEDIATE.
We should and can argue this stuff out and hash this shit out AFTER the revolution...
Yes?
Somehow I have a hard time getting pissed off about this one.
Iraq? Pissed off.
Darfur? Pissed off.
Global warming? Pissed off.
Our country taken over by raving right-wing, religious armageddonists who want to kill my kids, rape the environment, exploit third-world slave labor, and hand our country over to lawless multi-national corporations in a cynical and satanic pact to control all of our lives? Really, really pissed off.
Kos showing "not the love" to complaints about an ad with two women throwing pies at each other? Not so much.
But if you think it's most important to lay the gauntlet down on the last one - a line over which you just will not cross - well, so be it.
All I can say is, "Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out."
Maybe that's what Kos should have written instead?
The ad itself didn't bother me. If you read what most people have been saying, it's the fallout and general crappy attitude since that has bothered people. I didn't notice the ad - it's not like women selling things is unusual.
Sure, everyone is owed basic respect, if only in the form of being left alone, unless and until they do something to afrront you. The person next to me on the train deserves my respect, because they are a person, just like me. I have always been under the impression that basic respect is the premise of human rights. I'm angry about the torture of prisoners - because of basic human respect. I'm angry at the treatment of Native Americans - out of basic human respect. And I'm upset at the treatment of people on online communities as a result of this whol "pie fight" monstrosity for the same reason. Sure, people get angry online, that is to be expected, and usually it is obvious that someone is angry about an issue. No biggie. When the attacks become personally directed, that is an issue.
Like you said, you don't have to agree with me, I don't have to agree with you. Don't assume you know me or what I do, or that I'm sitting at a cushy desk job because I disagree with you.
You had to have known when you posted on this topic that people have strong feelings about it. Did you expect them to remain quiet to keep you happy?
When I see a group of people jump all over another group of people in very insulting terms in a community I participate in, I'll say something. Always will.
Oh men are sexist.
No shit. Deal with it and stop acting like you're owed something because mommy and daddy kissed your ass and your professors, when not trying to fuck you, catered to your nonsense.
Yes, that's how it was for all women. Particularly in college, where all of us got by because our professors (male and female, straight and gay) wanted to fuck all of us so they gave coddled us and passed us through. Everything we have wasn't earned but was given to us based on how fuckable we were, as you so ably pointed out.
You're right, Steve. Respect is earned. You just lost a lot of the respect I had for you with that load of bullshit. As with Kos, it isn't the fact that you disagree with some of us but rather the utter nastiness of what you wrote that rankles. I am simply appalled, but sadly not surprised, by your response.
Steve, who are you to say that people here don't work 80 hours a week? You don't know anything about your readership, really, and not much about how people with families are trying to make it in lousy jobs with lousy health care...etc. etc.
You are single and apparently able to make it without getting an ordinary job. You have the great luxury of doing what you want to do, and getting other people to pay for it. If you're complaining about the overwork, get a job and put in your 40-50-60 like everybody else.
Enough already with the Page Six pieces about what you and Kos and Atrios are all doing. Get back to the war, the economy, something important.
This blog, your blog Steve, is becoming more and more like a locker room. The pieces you would occasionally run on T-an-A have become regular. You even find a way to make snarky sexual comments in every piece you run about Condi Rice, for god's sake.
Now it's the Kos column.
How about running pieces on how it's hanging with all the boys? Every week or so? Maybe with pics. ??
"I honor diversity, but refuse to be politically correct",is my motto.
In RedDan's comment above he wrote, "People are dying, shot to pieces, bleeding to death, shitting themselves in the dirt and screaming for momma. Right on. I've seen the elephant, and it makes me sick.
Until this clusterfuck of a war ends all other issues are moot to me. Do I care about other issues? Yes, but they are secondary to the one overriding issue of the endless killing of thousands of human beings for GW's agenda, whatever the fuck that is.
I deal with vets who have PTSD big time, I just can't wait for the returning vets to start with their own version of it. And there are going to be plenty of women vets with it too. Maybe that is where some of the energy could be spent by those who want to help women.
Get to work. Stop the killing.
"My God, some people get their backs up over stupid shit. I bet your boyfriend could bullshit you blind before you got this angry. Oh, that's my "friend". And you'd accept it until the light went on in your head."
That's uncalled for. They're just disagreeing and it seems like you're the one getting your back up. To quote Captain Quinlan (Orson Welles): "Let's keep it in English Vargas". I'm not sure but I think I mean let's stay away from these personal attacks.
And I do work 80 hours a week... sometimes...72?
"This blog, your blog Steve, is becoming more and more like a locker room"
Not true. Steve ran a terrific piece this weekend about My Lai, the disintegration of the Army, an outdoor bbq fest (I feel my jealousy resurfacing on that one), his new web design, a great story about Ryan Belflower and the usual potporrui.
Don't you people know there's a very unpopular war on? As Madonna said: "Fight the real enemy."
As Madonna said: "Fight the real enemy."
Sinead O'Connor said that.
I didn't watch the ad. But I tend just to shut stuff like porn out when online (there's so much of it. It's like clear your in box of the 35 penis enlargement ads, check to see if your spyware is updated when you accidentally type in the wrong url and get spammed with popups, ignore the ads in both margins.
It all looks the same to me after awhile.
Steve,
I can appreciate your defending your friend; however, I think the idea of presenting a defense based solely on a business function is bullshit and a cop-out.
Were the ad, a "blackfaced" minstrel show of darkies all chomping on watermelons, and Kos' rejoinder knocking the sensitivities of the black-studies set, I think, in fact I know, you'd be on the opposite side right now.
I think we can be sensitive to people's issues, whether the particular issue bothers us or not. It's this "nuance" thing that separates us from the black/white vision of the opposing party.
"This blog, your blog Steve, is becoming more and more like a locker room"
I actually tend to find that in the typical 'Merkin gym, men are so afraid of other guys checking them out that they tend to avoid the stereotypically lewd, towel slapping, sexist behavior they're known for.
Locker rooms these days are pretty uptight places.
Wow, I am just amazed at how mad people are at the women for being mad at Kos for his tacky remarks about feminism. It seems that women being mad really pisses people off. Interesting. Also, I must have missed Kos' apology, though I have been following the controversy fairly closely. He sure must have said it quietly enough. If he had apologized for the comments - and I mean a real apology, not a "well if you misunderstood me then I am sorry you feel that way" cop-out non-apology like right-wingers do, then fine. To me the controversy shoudl end. but people like Steve with such a readership and popularity continuing to dump on the women for being pissed is just going to keep it going.
Were the ad, a "blackfaced" minstrel show of darkies all chomping on watermelons, and Kos' rejoinder knocking the sensitivities of the black-studies set, I think, in fact I know, you'd be on the opposite side right now.
That's a bad analogy.
The right one would be something like:
"Snoop Dog has a lewd video. Stanley Crouch writes an article about how it demeans blacks. Lot's of people on Kos get pissed off about how sexist and lewd rap gets."
Happens all the time.
I stood up for him when he said "fuck em" regarding mercs in Iraq. I still don't understand why he wants to equate feminist theory with right-wing book-banning. And I still don't understand why women getting mad for being insulted is seen as such a horrible thing. We are supposed to relax and enjoy it, or what?
fed up,
www.blogger.com
Where you can go post to your hearts content on topics you care about. I don't need your advice on which topics to post on or what opinions to have.
You know how this goes, you tell me what to post, I tell you to get a blog and post what you want.
manowar,
It's not a defense of a friend. Your analogy is bullshit because TBS wouldn't have run it.
What this is about is simple: people feel free to comment on issues, to slag each other without thinking about the larger implications. It's easy to micromanage without having the actual burdens of managing.
People can make comments and judgements and have no idea of the issues.
Daryl,
Before people go off, do they ask what the issues are? No. They know the answers before they ask the question.
goose and gander,
If you think that, after looking at the pieces I ran yesterday, well, that's a really stupid fucking opinion, you know. I could give a fuck if you like it or not, Go write your own fucking blog and stop reading this one, Ok?
SWR,
I'm not familar with the "playas", so I can't comment on your/my poor analogies.
What I can comment on is, accepting an advertisement for my site without seeing it is stupid, accepting an advertisement on my site that undercuts the liberal beliefs that my site supposedly supports is stupid, and that dissing the initial responses to the ad with a general, broadly based insult is even more stupid.
Yeah, I know..it happens all the time.
I stood up for him when he said "fuck em" regarding mercs in Iraq. I still don't understand why he wants to equate feminist theory with right-wing book-banning. And I still don't understand why women getting mad for being insulted is seen as such a horrible thing. We are supposed to relax and enjoy it, or what?
I personally would get much more angry at Kos if he came out and said something like "oh maybe we can support Hillary's anti-abortion moves" or "maybe it isn't the time for gay marriage" then because he ran an ad that bordered on soft-core porn.
How many of the women getting pissy at Kos supported John Kerry even after Kerry came out against gay marriage? What were the arguments for that?
Getting offended isn't about politics. It's about your own personal history.
Yeah, I know..it happens all the time.
manowar | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 9:25 am | #
You just did it.
You just equated the history of Jim Crow with some tacky and probably harmless soft core porn.
You are white, right? (disclaimer: I am too)
Steve,
Yeah, I know, management is "tough". I constantly hear that refrain from someone else.
Anna in Cairo,
Because, honestly, a lot of feminist theory is bullshit. Some isn't. The problem is that the loudest voices often make the stupidest arguments.
If I was going to pick a fight, I would have stood my ground over abortion or NARAL, not an ad. When men see that, they roll their eyes and laugh. The simply write it off. Not so with abortion.
I thought way too many people wanted to write abortion rights off for political gain and jumped on NARAL for endorsing Chafee. Those are worthy issues to stand your ground on. Not this crap. You don't have to like every opinion, but here's a point:
if you have people who have strong opinions and you cross swords with them, what makes you think their defense to you will be any less than their defense to the people they disagree with on other issues?
A stupid fucking ad for a stupid fucking show nobody was watching, using the oldest trick in the book, and the Kossacks get all hot and bothered. One of the reasons I read the main posts at Kos, but tend to stay away from the "community."
Kos' mistake was to say anything. By now, he should now the best policy is to just let it blow over.
And IIRC, that ad was on several other sites, including Atrios', where no one ever said jack shit about it 'cause everyone recognized it as a pathetic attempt at garnering attention for a dying TV show. Thanks, Kossacks - you did TBS' bidding perfectly!
manowar,
Well, he doesn't manage does he. Try it for a month and it gets a lot more complicated.
Yeah, I know, management is "tough". I constantly hear that refrain from someone else.
So there's an equivalence between a tacky ad and pre-emptive war and mass murder?
SWR,
oppression comes in a lot of forms. There's the really horrible and then there's the banal.
Nuance, SWR, nuance.....
SWR and Steve,
I'm afraid I have to cut out and go to work, uhm...managing......
See you tomorrow
oppression comes in a lot of forms. There's the really horrible and then there's the banal.
Nuance, SWR, nuance.....
That's not an answer to my point.
The important thing is to be able to make distinctions.
1.) I realize that there are things that are going to offend me that don't offend other people.
2.) I realize that I'm going to say things that I don't consider offensive that some people do.
3.) What I care about are hard core, political issues.
How many people on Kos cut John Kerry slack for not supporting gay marriage? How many of the people who are bitching about the ad did?
The reason that the leaders of the protesters keep saying "It's not about the ad!" even though it was, is because that if they admitted that it was about the ad, then they would be forced to deal with the question "How many of you would have been upset if it were two hunky guys oiling themselves up?"
Granted, there are a bunch of people in that contingent who did have long-simmering issues with Kos, namely over his stance on abortion and his feeling that Democrats like Ben Nelson are less destructive to the party than FOX-loving camera hogs like Joe Lieberman, and so used the ad as a "last straw" pretext to leave. But really, if you look at the initial diaries both before and after the Kos response, it was all about the ad.
The thing is that I'm getting strong reminders of how the mutiny on the Bounty went. Captain Bligh was put into a longboat with a few loyal officers and barely enough food to keep them going for a few weeks -- and he got them home with, IIRC, either no deaths or one. Meanwhile, the mutineers, who lacked Bligh's discipline (both of himself and of others), wound up on Pitcairn, ravished the local women, and fought amongst themselves so bitterly that only one of them was left fifteen years afterward.
In other words, don't be surprised to see the folks leaving Kos over this fight amongst themselves even more bitterly than they fought Kos.
I just don't get the refrain of "there is a war on and we have real issues so yours does not count" - surely we can focus on more than one at a time? God forbid, there could even be a woman who does not like Kos to talk down on feminism but still has time to be against the war in Iraq and still has time to be mad about lame Democrats trying to sell out the right to choice for a few Southern Baptist votes or whatever. Why is it that whenever women get irate about a women's issue we're told that it is not as serious as X issue? As you yourself say all the time, Steve, (usually in the context of your choice of subjects for blogging about,) this argument is a stupid one. As for the Kos thing I still think he was really extreme in his castigation of women's studies and he should have definitely apologized for it. A lot of women's studies type women have been really active in supporting his site and he put them in a category with Lieberman, for heaven's sake - if that is not a really rude insult what is? The ad is not the issue, really, for me at least. Not that I am a real member of his community anyhow.
OK. This is going to go around and around ad naseum.
But reading between the lines I see a few things:
1.) Ad revenue is down so blogads is becoming less picky about what it accepts.
2.) A lot of people on "the left" have little in common except being anti-Bush and anti-war. They haven't thought through their positions.
3.) People on Kos are willing to accept compromise at the top in a way they're not at the grass roots. I voted for John Kerry even though he's against gay marriage but now I'm expected to jump on a webmaster for a lewd ad.
4.) Where do you draw the line. If womens' groups can get offended, how about other groups? What if someone complained that Steve's posting about Pollard was "anti-semitic" (which they did). Or complained that his posting about pedophilia in the Catholic church was anti-Catholic (which they did)? Do you censor yourself?
5.) The "Ohio was stolen" bozos have pretty much cut off debate about what happened in 2004. Nobody's building on the fact that the grass roots brought Kerry close to winning. Nobody's asking questions about how to improve. Instead, like the left circa 1975, people are breaking up into little squabbling cliques.
How many people on Kos cut John Kerry slack for not supporting gay marriage? How many of the people who are bitching about the ad did?
And when you consider that gay issues and women's issues are intertwined, this is even more important.
Traditional attitudes on sex, at least in European and Middle/Near Eastern culture, can all be summed up in one phrase: "Better to be the fucker than the fuckee." (Or, as Jon Stewart put it recently: "It's not 'gay' if you're the guy.")
This is why transvestites scare the crap out of homophobes far worse than leathermen: They seek out the very traits society tells them "strong men" must avoid.
oy.
I don't really have much of a dog in this fight - the only really strong reaction I had to the ad was "Boy, I'm glad we got the cable shut off so my kid doesn't spend time watching this kind of shit" - but fwiw, the fallout from it reminds me of the fights you have when the honeymoon is over and Stuff That Annoys You becomes, through the magic power of having to put up with somebody else in your personal space, Incredibly Symbolic of Some Other Thing About the Person That You Can't Stand.
This isn't nearly as much about ideology, as near as I can tell, as it is a classic case of the kind of netsquabble people who don't get enough good news have that can best be solved with a dispassionate YMMV and instead gets personal really, really fast.
I don't always agree with Kos about politics, but I'm impressed by the sensible way he goes about working to effect changes that are important to me, and I think he's been really effective at it.
In a world where you need 50+x% of everybody out there to get anything done, I think he falls firmly within the range of on my side, even if sometimes we're at opposite ends of the range.
I'll take that.
And when you consider that gay issues and women's issues are intertwined, this is even more important.
Gay marriage is something you can either support or not, same with legal abortion.
Who cares if you're sexist or homophobic somewhere in your head (or if you tell dirty jokes). Do you support equal rights under the law or not?
Whether or not an ad (or a response to a complaint) is offensive is entirely subjective.
Pallids, squeamish, suburban whiteboy that I am, most of the women yesterday at the Puerto Rican day parade probably had a higher tolerance for lewd, sexist behavior than I do.
Does that mean I impose my own sensibilities on everybody else.
No.
What Manowar said. I'm fucking sick of this being ghettoized as only a 'woman's issue' or one that women are interested in. I'm a man. The ad? Embarassing. The reaction to the ad? Fucking bullshit. Would Markos have put up an ad of Speedy Gonzales? He could have kept the ad up, but once he dismissed those of us who were pissed about it as being part of a 'special interest group,' he fucked up. And he encouraged all the macho dick-measurers to start with their misogynist bullshit. I still read Kos. I think he has his uses. But he's got some growing up to do.
SWR-
Do you really think this thing is going to rip the party apart?
Personally, I got pissed off at Kos' tone in regards to complaints about the ad. I got pissed off at Steve implying that those of us who got pissed off didn't work for ourselves, fucked our way through college, whatever.
I'm still a democrat, I'll still vote democrat, barring a candidate who is just an absolute asshat. I voted for Kerry in spite of his resistance to gay marriage, but Kerry was always a lesser of two evils candidate. I made sure his campaign knew exactly how I felt about his stance, for what good it did.
The left will fight about women's issues more that the right because women's issues are truly considered a nonissue entirely by wingers.
Yes, we fight. A party of different people will lead to differences of opinion.
Steve, I don't make a living off my blog, of course, but I had the same damn ad. But I took the time out of my busy day to write people back who expressed offense at the ad and explain that while it's sexist, I didn't really feel it was any more or less so than the other crap on TV. And that yes, we need the money.
If I was going to pick a fight, I would have stood my ground over abortion or NARAL, not an ad. When men see that, they roll their eyes and laugh. The simply write it off. Not so with abortion.
Steve, when you say things like, "when men do this" or "when men do that", the implication comes across very strongly that men decide what the proper reaction is and women are to follow. Come off it. I very seriously considered taking everyone to task over the NARAL thing, but I was really persuaded by both sides and didn't feel I had a solid opinion to offer.
Kos would have been better off not responding at all if he was so damn offended. People wrote him because they like his site and they want it to live up to the inclusiveness that he is so fond of. Instead, he had to take a bunch of potshots at feminism and imply that our concerns only count if they coincide with his interests.
As for this important/not important shit, I listened to you on Air America and I really enjoyed your defense of bloggers who write about cultural issues so many high-minded liberal types want to write off as "fluff". No one gives a shit if I make fun of runaway brides or Michael Jackson, not really, but poke a little fun at a tedious adolescent sexual fantasy and watch the fur fly. Every time I hear a man say that this is *really* about the stupid ad, I tend to think for them this is *really* about wanting others to revere their sexual fantasies . And yet somehow it's *feminists* who supposedly don't have a sense of humor.
The "Ohio was stolen" bozos have pretty much cut off debate about what happened in 2004. Nobody's building on the fact that the grass roots brought Kerry close to winning. Nobody's asking questions about how to improve. Instead, like the left circa 1975, people are breaking up into little squabbling cliques.
That's my main fear about focusing on Ohio: People get cynical and that gives them the perfect excuse to not do any grunt work -- "It won't matter anyway, the machines are all Diebolded."
It's sad that people are breaking off into cliques rather than trying to work together. One of the the biggest strengths of DailyKos is its sheer size. As Ben Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately." (Shorter version: The picture of the segmented snake, each segment representing a colony -- "Join or Die.")
And, as RedDan mentioned earlier:
Show us the lists of people who were "banned" from DailyKos. Guess what? Nobody was banned from the site over this.
Do you really think this thing is going to rip the party apart?
Of course not. It's more of a sympton of a lack of focus than a cause of it.
So I'm not really against those people who are bitching about it. Let them bitch. It's not going to hurt anybody.
But I'd rather they were bitching about tangible stuff like abortion rights (Senate majority leader's a Mormon in case you haven't noticed) or gay marriage than over an ad.
Thanks Amanda. I'm with you.
And, maybe this point was made above, by Kos isn't just a business. It's a community. And he disrespected the community, or, at the least, chose to make the shit worse rather than trying to work out a solution.
Steve, I sort of wish you hadn't weighed in on this. Your Emily Bronte crack a few weeks ago still sticks in my craw. I mean, what the fuck? You could have had it running with, fuck, Anita Brookner or A. E. Housman or Gerald Manly Hopkins, but no one reads Wuthering Heights because they want to hang out in a bucolic fantasy. There's a certain willingness to malign what you don't understand evidenced in that crack that I think folds into this discussion. Whatever.
*sigh*
Okay, last time for me. I didn't give a flying donut about the damn ad. I still don't. There are beer commercials on every day that show more skin, and music videos far more objectifying. I do care about all of the invective that came about as a result of it. There are examples aplenty in this very thread.
But in the end, all of this pie related stuff just takes place here in the echo chambers. It is not an issue that will require fundraising, or hours spent manning phone banks, or mailing letters - I do that for for MoveOn and Planned Parenthood and Amnesty International and individual candidates as I deem fit.
However, this whole blowup shines a bright light on the attitudes towards women that are still all too prevalent in our society. As a symptom, I can understand why people are pissed. I'm still rather pissed myself.
Steve, I sort of wish you hadn't weighed in on this. Your Emily Bronte crack a few weeks ago still sticks in my craw. I mean, what the fuck?
This is becoming like a Monty Python skit
Don't you people know there's a very unpopular war on?
You bet there's a war on--a war on women and their rights.
There's a war on in Iraq for "freedom." Iraq was the one middle eastern country that had resonable equality for woman. Now Iraqi (as well as Afghan) woman are being forced back into their burkhas, afraid. We will most likely "accept" it as Iraq slips into Sharia law, which totally subjugates women.
In this country, Why is it legal for insurance (or the gov't) to pay for Viagra, but not for birth control?
Why have Kerry & Hillary have joined Senator Man-on-dog in support of the WFRA, which, in the right-wing-controlled Congress, will most likely have the effect of allowing pharmacists to refuse to provide drugs that women want and need?
Why aren't attaacks on abortion providers and Planned Parenthood offices included in the terrorism statistics?
Forced sterilizations in China, our #1 trading partner. Forced abortions in Saipan. Gotta make a buck, ya know. Yes there's a war on.
Steve, you rearely write about a woman without questioning her sexual activity. "Who is Judy Miller fucking?" "Who is Judith Reagan fucking?" About the "runaway bride", you first mocked her for being afraid of cock, then changed your tune to the prodigious quantities of cock she required. Either way, it was her sexual problem at issue.
Or a woman's looks--with Ann Coulter leading your hit parade. As if her looks were the cause of her idiotic politics. Oh of course: Men like Steve & RedDan wouldn''t fuck her with Ewan McGregor's "horsecock." And poor Tom Cruise has a "starfucking girlfriend."
Yes there's a war on. And the Women Kossacks know it.
You could have had it running with, fuck, Anita Brookner or A. E. Housman or Gerald Manly Hopkins, but no one reads Wuthering Heights because they want to hang out in a bucolic fantasy.
The proper poet to invoke about people who want to live in a buccolic fantasy would be Tennyson.
You bet there's a war on--a war on women and their rights.
In defense of Steve:
1.) He's consistently for abortion rights.
2.) He constantly bashes blacks for their homophobia.
3.) He supports gay marriage without reservation.
SWR, all of those are very true. Kudos to him for that.
And poor Tom Cruise has a "starfucking girlfriend."
Indeed. Leave Katie Holmes alone.
Bash Lindsey Lohan instead.
"Black guys love me - Damon (Dash), P. Diddy. 50 Cent called my agent for my number. ...I was freaking out! The first thing I thought was, 'Where's Eminem? I'm in love with him!'"
--Lindsay Lohan in the July issue of Elle Magazine
people are racist, so what? deal with it. sit your coddle ass down and put up with it.
god, i'm glad i don't have your attitude. felt like shit to even mimick it.
Red Dan wrote: "I hate to say this, but you really need to get the stars out of your eyes - there is not, nor will there ever be a perfect progressive site, person, or movement."
Amen. I had the dream boss once, the most compassionate, liberal guy you could imagine. But he had one blind spot--he couldn't stand gays and thought of them as a uniform group of predators. Why? Because when he was a young soldier on leave, he had hitched a ride home and had to fight off the driver on a lonely country road. The loathing just stayed with my boss, but years later he was finally willing to admit that it was emotional, not rational.
As far as the Kos flap goes, I'm more than willing to overlook someone's blind spots because on balance there's so much more that's excellent.
I say to the offended: Grow up. Not everybody is going to agree all the time.
Americans have created a whole new group of victims: The Offended. And it's not confined to the left. Aren't we telling the fundies to get over it when they're offended by popular culture? It's a small step from making "offending" into "an offense" and legislating against it. Then the definition of "offense" gets smaller and more intrusive with each repressive iteration.
Whatever happened to tolerance? As long as someone's offensiveness isn't physically hurting or impeding me, what business is it of mine?
Whatever happened to tolerance? As long as someone's offensiveness isn't physically hurting or impeding me, what business is it of mine?
Because the people who are complaining about the ad think dumb men like me are going to see it and immediately feel compelled to go out and abuse women.
Because the people who are complaining about the ad think dumb men like me are going to see it and immediately feel compelled to go out and abuse women.
"Studies have shown" repeated viewing of violent porn desensitises [college students] to violence.
If repeated images of [something] don't make that something more desireable and more acceptable, then why is som much money spent on advertising? Why is there Fox "News?"
Wrong again, SWR. But keep trying.
Studies have shown" repeated viewing of violent porn desensitises [college students] to violence.
If repeated images of [something] don't make that something more desireable and more acceptable, then why is som much money spent on advertising? Why is there Fox "News?"
To quote Frank Zappa, if music affected people as much as you're saying it does, there would be world peace since 90% of the popular music out there is about love.
It's about making women feel like they belong--nudie shots on the front page can and often do function as a way to say "No Girls Allowed". Now I don't think that's always true, but when you back it up with condescending remarks about how the women need to STFU so the men can talk about Important Man Shit, then you're being sexist.
SWR:
Or the Goon Show.
Having commented on the first thread on Kos regarding the pie ad:
This was NOT about Kos' response- though his response certainly fueled the fire. His response came the next day.
Before Kos said anything, people who disagreed with those who disliked the pie ad were immediately troll rated. The comments from the people who disliked the pie ad were twice as shrill and twice as condescending than anything coming from the 'locker room' 'frat boy' 'get over it' set. Calling me a frat boy is like calling me a racist. Fuck anyone who dares to do that.
The attitudes displayed that weekend, and as made obvious by thread, to this day, is essentially sanctimonious bullshit that turns off the libertarian that is present in many liberals.
Great, now we have the sexists who are offended at being called sexist--reminds me of talking with racists who don't like being told they're racist. Damn, you'd think being called sexist is worse than being sexist.
I didn't care about the ad really. It was typical sexist crap put out by the media to titillate horny men and pander to their baser instincts. What else is new?
I was however taken back by the sexist comments made by Kos,,, and I have the smoothest most exfoliated legs on the east coast.
If I was going to pick a fight, I would have stood my ground over abortion or NARAL, not an ad.
Steve: People did stand their ground over NARAL and abortion. (People here Includes, not that it matters, this white guy.)
Are you really so dense as to not link the response to Kos' name calling with his STFU attitude over reproductive rights? The point isn't deconstructing Pie Fight and comparing it to, say, American Apparel or J-list banners. The point is that Kos is developing a obvious track record of hostility toward feminism.
It's his site, and he can choose to deal with the problem or not. That's his right, but the name calling is just lame.
I guess it's one thing to talk about coalitions, and another to actually listen to people.
Where do you draw the line.?
SWR: You take things one at a time. Pollard should be in jail forever, for example. It's pretty easy to argue it. Moreover, Steve has a good understanding of the Jewish community, it's various viewpoints, needs, etc. That came out in his Pollard essays too. (``Everybody who wants to live in Israel does'' is a great way of summing it up, Steve.)
Kos clearly doesn't have a handle on how women look at body and gender politics. It oozes out of all of his NARAL posts, and when he pops off about not needing the ``women's studies'' set to tell him about gender, he sounds a lot like Rush and the other right-wing media ``victims.''
Is Pie Fight the best proxy for discussing gender? No. But Donovan McNabb wasn't the best proxy for discussing race. Sometimes context is what sets things off.
The proper poet to invoke about people who want to live in a buccolic fantasy would be Tennyson.
I’ll take Yeats….
I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made:
Watching a 60-second PG-13 blog ad shall I do there
And then shall I have my ass flamed into oblivion...
Amanda:
Hey just because the ad doesn't offend ME doesn't make me sexist. I like porn too. So shoot me. I like the ladies and all their sexiness. Society made me.
I agree with the argument that the AD is sexist. Take it up with TBS- not with me or Kos.
Your argument holds no more water than "Geez, now the bitch is being offended for being called a bitch!"
I’ll take Yeats….
But Yeats wrote poems about rape
A sudden blow: the great wings beating still
Above the staggering girl, her thighs caressed
By his dark webs, her nape caught in his bill,
He holds her helpless breast upon his breast.
as a metaphor for a violent confrontation with History.
Tennyson never confronted us with anything so violent.
Damn, you'd think being called sexist is worse than being sexist.
Sure--their cover is blown. But those being called sexists should STFU and get over it. There's a war on.
They sat them down upon the yellow sand,
Between the sun and moon upon the shore;
And sweet it was to dream of Fatherland,
Of child, and wife, and slave; but evermore...
...Alfred Tennyson -- objectively pro-slavery. 
Of course the ironic thing about this is that while I haven't seen the ad yet, I'm itching to get home and watch it.
Stuff that pisses people off tends to be good
Of course the whole bit about bringing out the sexual undercurrent of Gilligan's island is kind of dumb and obvious.
What next, Batman and Robin might have been gay and into S&M?
Poika, lay off that strawman. I don't care about the ad. I do care about men like Kos and Steve telling us that men are the ones in charge of setting the agenda and women's role is unquestioning support. Beat off to whatever you like. I don't care, and I'm beginning to think that might be the *real* issue.
Stuff that pisses people off tends to be good
SWR: It's actually pretty lame.
Poika, lay off that strawman. I don't care about the ad. I do care about men like Kos and Steve telling us that men are the ones in charge of setting the agenda and women's role is unquestioning support. Beat off to whatever you like. I don't care, and I'm beginning to think that might be the *real* issue.
It's not about the sex.
Where have I heard that one before?
Do you see how a lot of liberals (both male and female) might just get a little touchy when it comes to attacks on men for their perceived sexism or insensitivity or whatever?
My only real goal is to seperate sex and politics completely. I know that it's impossible but I don't want to talk about sexism. I don't want to talk about which men are sensitive or not.
I want to talk about class. I want to talk about economics.
FWIW, I'm probably a stronger supporter of gay marriage and abortion rights than you are. And I'm also probably as sexist as you think I am.
Do you care?
SWR--sorry, you can't separate sex from politics. Sex/gender issues are every bit as inseparable from politics as class and race. Too bad about what you "want" to do. Unfortunately, reality intrudes.
Oh, you don't want to talk about sexism? Huh. And why is that? Do you want to talk about racism, or do you find it possible to separate racism from politics? Do you want to leave homophobia out of your discussion as well, because that's not politics?
Man, you have a mighty narrow definition of politics. Politics is about who has the power: what groups do, what groups don't, and how they use it.
Last time I checked, that meant that gender, race, and sexual orientation are definitely in the discussion.
Look, you blame Kos for the bandwagoning behavior of about 20 or 30 idiots on a site that gets 14 million visits a week?
Yes. Yes they do.
These are the same knee-jerk whiners Rush used to hang us in the 90s.
KOS needs these women like gays need NAMBLA.
.
Gee, my response would have been more direct than Kos's.
To those members of the sexphobic prude brigade on the left, you have a lot in common with Dobson.
I understand that you are concerned, but quite frankly, I don't care.
It's this kind of solipsistic bullshit that has the repulsive "Club for Growth" painting us as, " "latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving left-wing freaks."
And in YOUR case, they are correct.
Tell the minimum wage mom why she should give a damn about ANYTHING the left wing anti-sex league says.
So, basically, Kos must make money is what it comes down to. The message is secondary. Values are secondary. It is only about getting ad dollars to be able to keep running. Sounds dangerous.
What if al-Qaeda pays for an ad? Can't take it down; must have those revenue dollars.
What if a company runs an ad with an actor in blackface eating fried chicken and grits and talking like Buckwheat? Can't take that down? I bet he could and would.
If the primary purpose of the so-called big boys of the blogosphere is about chasing the bucks to stay on the air, then the voice is not worth having.
So, basically, Kos must make money is what it comes down to. The message is secondary. Values are secondary. It is only about getting ad dollars to be able to keep running. Sounds dangerous.
Who the fuck said that?
Oh, that was you.
OK.
Scared me for a second.
.
Oh, you don't want to talk about sexism? Huh. And why is that? Do you want to talk about racism, or do you find it possible to separate racism from politics? Do you want to leave homophobia out of your discussion as well, because that's not politics?
Because it leads to discussions like this which are highly subjective and tend to degenerate into name calling. They go nowhere.
What if a company runs an ad with an actor in blackface eating fried chicken and grits and talking like Buckwheat?
Hold on there. I thought it *wasn't* about the ad.
Steve, I would not have thought it possible for you to show the disrespect and contempt for, and to make the ungrounded assumptions about, feminists:
"No shit. Deal with it and stop acting like you're owed something because mommy and daddy kissed your ass and your professors, when not trying to fuck you, catered to your nonsense."
So this is how you think of feminists. So this is how you think every feminist was raised, educated, and now lives. Let me tell you, a hell of a lot of us are far from being spoiled brats, and it's more than insulting for you to print shit like this. Your stereotypes are showing, Steve.
As for the ads, oh come on. Refusing one ad would not break the fucking Kos bank. All the time we pillory people for hypocrisy, for taking money from questionable (to put it mildly) sources, so why shouldn't progressives ask for accountability in cases like this?
But nope, it's throw the women overboard, we are fighting a war, can only do one thing at a time apparently, etc etc etc.
Gee ... I remember a time when blacks were told to bide their time ... Yeah, ladies to the back please, you'll be notified when it's your turn.
You know all this shit is interconnected. It isn't Iraq war over here, women's rights over here. It's all connected--just ask the women in Iraq. And Afghanistan.
Can we just say that men are pigs, leave it at that and get back to trying to checkmate Bush?
Seriously, as a College guy, I laughed at it and then went back to writing my government paper on how george w. bush was trying to stop a medical treatment that could have saved Ronald Regean's Life, and that those stem cells should have taken one for the Gipper.
It wasn't a big deal. My views of women remained oddly un-effected. I still like strong women, and I know if I had a passive christian wife, It would drive me crazy, because she wouldn't be my equal. All this stuff I hear about "the entertainment media" is such Bull-shit. I played Doom, Quake, Half-Life in high school. I watched the Matrix. yet oddly enough, I owned no guns, and I certainly didn't kill anyone in high school.
As you guys getting offended at men not taking this issue seriously, pick your battles better. In 2004, I am sure that some of us here would have loved to have scene ads linking bush's imcompitence to 9-11. But the ad makers realized that would have no traction and would be political suicide. Hence they picked battles on ads we could have won. While we lost on the account of John Kerry's and his campaigns' incompitence, that does not invalidate my example.
Personally, I think it was short sided for Naral to endorse anyone in the race. endorsing one would offend a segment of your core contingency.
Chaffee, means a Republican majority=anti-abortion agenda
Other guy (whose name escapes me), anti-abortionist, which looks like Naral has comprimised on it's principals.
I personally think that it would be better for Naral in the long run to get the other guy since a Democrate majority would ensure anti-abortionist legeslation would never see the senate floor.
So, tactically, this was one battle Naral should have sat out.
Ahahahahaha, the critics of the critics are now so over the top as to be ridiculous. Critisising the ad = NAMBLA ahahahahahaahaha, so moronic that its not worthy of a good response.
You guys keep fighting the imaginary liberal Dobsons of your imagination, after all its much easier to win an argument when you invent your opponents positions for them.
I see the word "feminist" is now being bandied about like "Nicks fan," or something.
No, Steve wasn't talking about feminists. He was talking about spoiled whiners, and gave an example.
If you don't want that applied to women in general, estraven, then don't apply it to women in general,.
You can't just go around making shit up to whine about. That's what Steve was talking about.
.
Critisising the ad = NAMBLA ahahahahahaahaha, so moronic that its not worthy of a good response.
Apparently, since you didn't write one.
You'd have to read it, first, to be able to do that.
Let me know when you do.
The PC crowd has been worse than useless for over a decade. Throw them on the fire and move on.
.
On a second note, I bet 25 more posts till this flamewar is Godwin'ed.
On a second note, I bet 25 more posts till this flamewar is Godwin'ed.
Power User | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 1:19 pm | #
You mean they're gonna dress up one of their strawmen as Hitler?
Whatever helps them avoid the point, I guess.
.
Gee ... I remember a time when blacks were told to bide their time ... Yeah, ladies to the back please, you'll be notified when it's your turn.
He's not saying that. He fully supports gay marriage and legal abortion.
SWR: Its not about the ad, its about the ad being at Dailykos. That was the cause of the original complaints. The rest of the complaints were over the reaction to the complaints. So no, its really not about the ad.
GMT: The PC crowd? Define that for me Rejecting sexism, racism and homophobia = PC? How do you propose rejecting 'PC'?
SWR: Its not about the ad, its about the ad being at Dailykos.
It's not about the blowjob. It's about the blowjob being in the White House.
I gotta say this. Toughen up your skin people. If you can't take this level of debate, then get the heck out of politics.
That's what participation on these blogs are: politics.
I'm going to have to bow out of this flamewar simply because every time I scroll down to click on the thread I have to look at Kim Polese. Bleh.
FWIW, my right-wing, Mexican hating, working class mother will vote for Hillary if she runs.
So there's a lot out there I will admit. And she'd do it just to piss of my Clinton hating father.
You mean they're gonna dress up one of their strawmen as Hitler?
No, it means you'll start popping off about feminazis, along the vein of that idiotic NAMBLA reference.
Do you really think there would have been this blowup if the ad was at Instapundit or whereever else? Nobody would have cared. If this was on TV it might have got some comments but essentially noone would really have cared. The only reason this became an issue is because it was on a site that was supposed to reject sexism and be somewhere women weren't treated as sex objects.
Oh, and the blowjob was never about the blowjobat all, it was about Clinton, so thats a false comparison.
SWR, it's clearly about sex for you and not wanting your juvenile jollies called for what they are.
Sex gets real political real quick for men if something they think belongs to them gets denied, ever notice?
You know what would be refreshing, fuckin'-A refreshing???
If men stopped telling women what we should be interested in, affected by, offended by, insulted by; what battles we should pick; how to be considered serious by, well, MEN; what responses of ours are valid; whether or not we make good progressives; how it is our fault that discussions of sexism "go nowhere," as SWR says; and so on, and if, instead, they entertained the radical fucking idea that we are full-blown human beings who will decide for ourselves what is in our best interests, accompanied by the radical fucking idea that men don't have a corner on the market of ideas, priorities, and valid opinion. Accompanied by the idea that a man who has a widely read blog might not, just might not, be infallible.
And by the way, SWR, supporting gay marriage and legal abortion is quite possible while still relegating the women to the back of the bus. As long as we are demeaned, caricatured, dismissed, and told how to behave and what is appropriate for us, as well as being told that our issues are not pressing enough to be dealt with now, we are being told to sit in the back.
Can we just say that men are pigs, leave it at that and get back to trying to checkmate Bush?
It wasn't a big deal. My views of women remained oddly un-effected. I still like strong women, and I know if I had a passive christian wife, It would drive me crazy, because she wouldn't be my equal.
If you manage to get a strong wife, she's not going to like the intellectual dishonesty when you whip out that "you must hate men" canard during arguments, I assure you.
As long as we are demeaned, caricatured, dismissed, and told how to behave and what is appropriate for us, as well as being told that our issues are not pressing enough to be dealt with now, we are being told to sit in the back.
The problem is that whether or not you had this particular reaction to that ad depends a lot more on how you were treated by your parents and by the men you've dealt with than the ad itself.
And it goes the same for your reaction to Kos's snippy response. Some people would just simply say "OK. I'll read another website." Others seem to be so dependent on this one URL that they seem to think that it's public property now, not private property.
There is absolutely nothing stopping women from setting up their own "Daily Kos".
I agree with you, estraven, as to what would be refreshing.
Can we also throw in "not whining when men don't give us what we want," and "venting about unrelated, traumatic episodes when we don't get what we want"?
Those are old stereotypes of the "weakness" of women, and it's high time women stopped living down to them while calling themselves "feminists."
.
No, it means you'll start popping off about feminazis, along the vein of that idiotic NAMBLA reference.
Xeno | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 1:27 pm | #
OK, that's two who didn't get it (and one who doesn't know Godwin's rule).
See? These are the people I said we don't need.
Then they go and prove it for me.
Good riddance.
.
Anonymous: that's not PC, not even when "politically correct" was a joke among leftists about immature leftists.
This is all I've seen from the pie-whiners: straw man after straw man, and not even new straw men.
.
This is so freaking bizarre. Most of the women who have made comments have made it clear that it's not necessarily the ad, but the reaction to the complaints about the ad that is causing the trouble. I don't understand why this is so "out there" for you and some other people in the blogosphere. Had Kos responded to complaints about the ad by saying "Look, it sucks, but this is how I make a living." or "Look, I don't agree that this is necessarily exploitive, but I understand there are some people who are...and I'm sorry, but this is how I make a living and I don't have much choice." Things would be way different.
Instead, the response was, basically, "fuck you, you hairy-legged feminazis, I'm doing it my way." OK, that's harsh, but that's what *I* heard in his response.
Granted, some people would have still been upset with Kos for keeping the ad up regardless of his response. I'm not terribly thrilled about the ad, myself, but I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall when "you men" keep going back to the ad as if that's the focus of this debacle. It's not. It's the reaffirmation that women's concerns don't matter and aren't even worthy of consideration or debate because there are "more important" issues to talk about.
The fact that men get to define what is and is not "important" is what keeps sexism alive and kicking in our culture. So, congrats! You get to have your power! You are right! We are just a bunch of hairy-armpitted wackos out to derail the democratic party!
Because nothing...absolutely NOTHING is more important than a bunch of white men in suits making laws and deals and patting each other on the back.
There is absolutely nothing stopping women from setting up their own "Daily Kos".
SWR | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 1:40 pm | #
Yes, but then these people would have to take responsibility themselves, and can't blame KOS for not being the perfect father figure.
Let's see how that goes. So far, they're still talking about KOS and little else, so it's not exactly 'independent.'
.
SWR, it's clearly about sex for you and not wanting your juvenile jollies called for what they are.
OK. I'm going to hell for saying this but you do kind of remind me of Nurse Ratched when you say "Juvenile Jollies".
Because, drublood, KOS never said women's issues weren't important. Even to women's issues, the ad wasn't important. He was prettly clear about that.
Like a lot of us, he's sick of the knee-jerk complaints about images magically harming women through the aether. Some of us think we left spectral evidence behind after Salem. The women calling for sensitivity on this issue don't seem to have wondered where the hostility is coming from, becase so-called "feminists" already have pre-chewed, sexist models of male mentalities to explain everything to them.
That way, they don't have to think and they don't have to be 'sensitive' to anyone else.
Neat, huh?
.
SWR, it's clearly about sex for you and not wanting your juvenile jollies called for what they are.
Someone needs to get over their sexist disgust for male sexuality. Bigotry is not an argument.
.
Can we just say that men are pigs, leave it at that and get back to trying to checkmate Bush?
It wasn't a big deal. My views of women remained oddly un-effected. I still like strong women, and I know if I had a passive christian wife, It would drive me crazy, because she wouldn't be my equal.
If you manage to get a strong wife, she's not going to like the intellectual dishonesty when you whip out that "you must hate men" canard during arguments, I assure you.
Amanda Marcotte | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 1:36 pm
Hi there. I want to introduce you to this thing called humor. I was taking a shot at both sides to try to get them to laugh. You should note the " " which you just happened to ommit during the quotation process.
Now you were saying something about intellectual honesty?
Hi there. I want to introduce you to this thing called humor.
Damn you and your juvenile jollies!!!
Do you understand that the advert is sexist? If you put up a picture of one woman about to fuck another with a strap-on in your workplace you would be the subject of a lawsuit. Complaining about sexism isn't 'whining' and its not weak, weak is accepting the bigotry of those around you without complaint.
The strawmen in this thread are the complaints against hairy legged sex haters. Funny, I'm sure thats a rightwing stereotype and yet it's trotted out by some so-called liberals when they are challenged.
Do you understand that the advert is sexist?
Do you understand that the advert is a spoof? If you did, you wouldn't be wasting the bandwidth of this site with your mindless blather. Leg hair or no leg hair, I'd like to see some fucking grey matter, and so far, the pie-whiners have none.
It wasn't bigotry. You missed the joke. Hello? HELLO?!? HELLO!!!??? Anyone home?
How you can invent some unrelated scenario about prosthetic sexual devices in the workplace and then pretend to be in a position to complain about strawmen is for your therapist to figure out.
.
Oh, what's this? A black man and a guy who grew up stepping over dead bodies to get to school in El Salvador don't think a silly, juvenile ad is very important in the greater scheme of things, and aren't impressed by the attempts to win arguments by appealing to white male liberal guilt? Who'd a thunk it!
Do you understand that the advert is sexist? If you put up a picture of one woman about to fuck another with a strap-on in your workplace you would be the subject of a lawsuit.
Haven't seen the ad. Now I'm going to have to.
You know, if this isn't viral marketing it should be.
Make a sexist ad and run it on all the big leftist weblogs.
Then manufacture outrage about it and get everybody to look at it.
The second picture of that ad is exactly what I described. This ad went up at a site that isn't a porn site, it was supposed to be about political discussion. A joke? An enviroment of unwanted extremely sexual 'humor' would also earn a lawsuit in the workplace. I'm not calling for a lawsuit against Kos, but the principal is the same. It IS bigotry, you just can't handle being the bigot
This has now become, "The Runaway Pie."
Amanda:
Steve and Kos, I believe, would be the first to say you can think and argue about anything you believe in.
What shocked me about the whole pie fight fight was that instead of sticking around and making your argument, like, say, you do, people picked up their ball and went home. Not exactly a good way to prove you're right. After all, isn't that what politics are all about? Trying to convince people you're on the right side of the issue, and then being ridiculed by people who don't think so?
That's why the sanctimony and the judgements of people one doesn't know ends up coming off as liberal Dobsonism.
Ah yes, the feminists are humorless. I hate sex and am humorless. I also hate men. All of these things are why I told my boyfriend I love that we can lay around nekkid and laugh.
The second picture of that ad is exactly what I described. This ad went up at a site that isn't a porn site, it was supposed to be about political discussion. A joke? An enviroment of unwanted extremely sexual 'humor' would also earn a lawsuit in the workplace.
So it is about the ad?
Its about the ad being at dailykos If the ad was at a pornsite no one would care. But that ad was at dailykos so people did.
I'm not out to take away anyone's porn, though I promise you that I am not going to go into raptures at the stupid, unimaginative fantasy of a pie-fight. Big deal that you don't have more interesting fantasies--not my problem by a mile.
I would, however, like to see some pics on blog sidebars of say, some hot young men rolling around in oil for my benefit. Not going to happen of course, because we wouldn't want any young men to feel uncomfortable.
BRING ON THE NAKED MEN!!!!
After all, is a two way street.
Its about the ad being at dailykos
And the blowjob being in the Oval Office.....
I would, however, like to see some pics on blog sidebars of say, some hot young men rolling around in oil for my benefit. Not going to happen of course, because we wouldn't want any young men to feel uncomfortable.
FWIW, you could advertise this show on the Daily Kos and it wouldn't offend me or make me uncomfortable.
Good luck, Power User. I've found many times in my life that expressing appreciation for gay porn because it has hot guys going at it will clear out a room in a way that porn showing two girls (rarely as hot due to plastic surgery) going at it will.
Sure it wouldn't SWR. Sure. Your sexual imagination has made you defend what has got to be the lamest fantasy out there and you'll have me believe you wouldn't be squigged by that? Unfortunately, we'll never know 'cause no one would take the risk of losing male readership like that.
I didn't see any pictures of cream-covered men at that link, by the way.
SWR,
You know, I have my opinions and I'm glad to have people disagree or not.
But you're wrong about Blogads.
1) If sites rely just on political ads, it will be very tough to normalize income. We need TBS and other mainstream advertisers to help do that.
2)As a rule, Blogads and individual sites don't solicit ads, ads come to us, and unless we click on the art for the ad, we rarely see it.
3)We don't pick or censor ads as a rule. I haven't heard of many ad rejections either on the right or the left.
I'm not sure why you arn't understanding this. It's about context. The ad mattered because of it's location. If an ad for porn was shown on Cartoon Network people would complain. If an ad for porn was shown on a porn channel nobody cares. I can't put it much more plainly
The blowjob was never about the blowjob, in the white house or otherwise. It was about destroying Bill Clinton. If there hadn't been a blowjob they would have called him a rapist yet again, the blowjob was just a convenient excuse.
You know what's hilarious? All this shit about 'I love strong women, therefore, I must be right.' Well, here you go, you have a thread full of strong women trying to voice their opinions, and most of the men here are saying 'STFU, cunts; you mean you believed us when we said we were for women's rights?' And 'I'm for abortion rights, therefore I can't be sexist!' Gimme a break, you're for abortion rights because you want to be able to spew your seed in all the twats you feel like without having to wear a condom or deal with the resulting children. The only reason why this is a big deal now is because a lot of silly women, including me, believed that liberal guys were more sensitive to women's issues than conservative men, only to realize that you care no more about our issues than Bush cares about xtians. Your continued insistance that it's all about the ad proves that you don't get it, don't want to get it, don't feel you need to get it, and don't give a shit whether we have an opinion on anything.
Steve, there is no surprise here, I've overlooked your blatant sexism for some time now; you've been called on it before. And I've known that you can be fiery in your rhetoric and even liked it on many occasions. But shit, it's really a bummer to find out that you're just another asshole. I think this whole blowup got so huge because stupidly, a lot of us thought the only assholes around were on the other side. Bummer.
Amanda: I'm a gay male, and I'm inclined to be sympathetic towards people who call shenanigans on the whole "feminists are humorless" line of bullshit. I agree that it's a vindictive lie.
But the people you're bitching about here aren't sneering at feminists as a block. They're sneering at a grand total of 30 or so hand-wringing pests (if it's even as many as that) who apparently have far more time on their hands than they know what to do with, and nothing better to complain about than a silly spoof ad that's about (a.) A pie fight and (b.) Gilligan's Island.
Gilligan's Island, for fuck's sakes.
Can you really not understand why some of us are treating this little brouhaha as anything less than A Matter of Huge Import? It's ridiculous. Steve's right: This is the Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea all over again. It's the sort of thing that makes those of us on the left look like fools who aren't serious about things that actually matter. And it's idiotic on the face of it. You do nothing but play into Karl Rove's hands with this nonsensical crap.
The problem is that whether or not you had this particular reaction to that ad depends a lot more on how you were treated by your parents and by the men you've dealt with than the ad itself.
Well, of course, because lord knows women can't form their own opinions. Only protected princesses or women who've been victimized by men could possibly miss the humor in that delightful pie fight ad.
I don't give a shit about the pie ad, but it is discouraging to see the reaction to those who were offended. No one can take a moment to listen to the offended, maybe say "I hear your concerns, but here's why I disagree." Nope, immediately the defenses go up and the attacks go out: humorless bitches.
No, I have nothing better to worry about, seeing as I lay around all day watching Fox and eating bon-bons while Carlos and Maria scrub the stables and make me pastry.
The degredation of women is one of those things I'm a bit over sensitive about. If I subscribe to the dead-tree version of NRO, maybe I'll come to my senses.
Frankly Steve, I think you're too sensitive about race. Walk around the house humming Dixie and you'll probably feel better.
Your right Laura, people making sweeping generalizations of other people is so completely wrong.
Well, of course, because lord knows women can't form their own opinions. Only protected princesses or women who've been victimized by men could possibly miss the humor in that delightful pie fight ad.
I'm not saying that. But only a woman who had a bad relationship with her father and tends to be attracted to abusive men anyway would be outraged by it.
What Amanda's doing is pretty clear. She's basically trolling. If she pisses enough people off sooner or later one of them's going to make a sexist remark and confirm her worldview.
She's not really trying to engage anyone or make her case.
No, Laura. The reason we don't take you seriously is because of what you just wrote.
Just another pile of strawmen. Yawn.
Penis or no penis, you're an idiot.
.
SWR,
You know, I have my opinions and I'm glad to have people disagree or not.
But you're wrong about Blogads.
1) If sites rely just on political ads, it will be very tough to normalize income. We need TBS and other mainstream advertisers to help do that.
2)As a rule, Blogads and individual sites don't solicit ads, ads come to us, and unless we click on the art for the ad, we rarely see it.
3)We don't pick or censor ads as a rule. I haven't heard of many ad rejections either on the right or the left.
steve_gilliard | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 2:23 pm | #
Tell me something. If you ran ads for softcore gay porn on Kos and the gang at LGF manufactured a crisis over it, how many of the liberal democratic politicians would jump ship a la Martin Frost?
She's not really trying to engage anyone or make her case.
SWR | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 2:37 pm | #
They had a case?
.
I will say what I've said on my blog in order to make it more clear why we are disappointed by this argument:
Those who appear to be our natural allies appeal to women during election time, forget about us after the election is over, dismiss us when we call bullshit, demean us when we demand integrity, and then use our bodies to sell their product.
And if you still don't get it,
Here you go.
I'm off of the computer for the day. Have fun berating me and mine for our short-sightedness and lack of humor.
But only a woman who had a bad relationship with her father and tends to be attracted to abusive men anyway would be outraged by it.
Broad brush, anyone?
SRW, Amanda's on your side unless you're telling her to shut up for disagreeing. Mary, Mary, quite contrary.
And now I'm off.
I've been treated pretty fucking horribly by men a lot in my life and I didn't think much of the ad until I got emails about it. So there goes that theory. I like men, but I am roundly sick of deferring to their authority just because.
John D., I didn't even get into this until Kos spit out his nasty, sexist insults at women for *daring* speak their mind. He didn't have to agree with them--I don't either, but I can see what they're saying about feeling welcome there--but basic respect is not out of line.
Women aren't voting for Democrats like we should, and it's because the supposedly anti-sexist stance is ringing a bit hollow when women aren't even permitted to speak our minds without being told we hate sex and have no sense of humor.
Actually, SWR, a lot of liberal blogs ran some pretty racy stuff about Bush's Man Date and Guckert/Gannon.
So, while ordinarily I'd say the pie-whiners are indulging in a supposition contrary to fact fallacy by coming up with a gay scenario and saying that since that hasn't happened KOS is a sexist (as is anyone else who won't agree with them), the fact is that that content HAS appeared on those sites.
They've graduated from making shit up to bitch about to ignoring what actually has happened to keep on bitching.
Simply amazing. Like I said: we don't need these people.
.
Please, SWR quit talking and start putting the softcore ad of two men going at it together. Please do it or else I'm going to think you're full of shit.
Sounds like you had a bad relationship with your mother, by the way, SWR. And quit picking on feminists because you can't get someone to suck your dick.
Yeah, it's not too fun to be on the receiving end of that.
I didn't even get into this until Kos spit out his nasty, sexist insults at women for *daring* speak their mind.
And now you've pretending it was their audacity that pissed him off.
Nice.
Patholigical assumptions about male sexuality infested the KOS threads, and most began with missing the SPOOF nature of the ad.
People shouldn't complain about being held up as anti-sex (at least male sexuality) and humorless after demonstrating exactly that.
.
It was. Once again, I ignored the whole thing until he spouted off like that and ran the ad on my own damn blog.
Patholigical? What the hell is that?
Oh well. Hard to type with a Baby Bjorn on.
.
It was. Once again, I ignored the whole thing until he spouted off like that and ran the ad on my own damn blog.
Amanda Marcotte | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 2:46 pm | #
You're saying KOS was pissed off that women dared speak?
Where the hell did he say that?
.
Why does it being a spoof matter? You have no problem with racist jokes I suppose? The ad is pornographic, it doesn't matter if it's [i]joke[/i] porn, its still porn see? Jokes about niggers and faggots don't stop being bigoted because they are jokes see? I guess those who know the least do shout the loudest.
I want to talk about class. I want to talk about economics.
SWR: You can't. Class and economics play themselves out in terms of race and gender. You don't seem to dislike identity politics, so why the issues with gender politics.
This statement is almost laughable in a dailykos context, since the ``working class'' according to the conventional wisdom of that site is made up of white Christian men.
Sounds like you had a bad relationship with your mother, by the way, SWR.
Yes I did. Typical passive aggressive WASP victim type who used guilt to control my brother and me even while she was being abusive towards both of us.
So if I'm allowing myself to be trolled by you this might have something to do with it. I'm showing I'm not under any obligation to conform to the good little sensitive boy standard my mother wanted me to conform to.
We all have baggage. You. Me. Everybody.
The ad is pornographic
Not really. The ad is sexist and lame but hardly porn.
This statement is almost laughable in a dailykos context, since the ``working class'' according to the conventional wisdom of that site is made up of white Christian men.
On the contrary, I'd rather talk about (male and female) sales clerks making minimum wage at Walmart then about middle-class white women and their issues.
We can all play this game. Doesn't it get tedious after awhile.
Why does it being a spoof matter? You have no problem with racist jokes I suppose?
Good God you're dumb. It remains to be seen if your inadequacy is affect by volume level. Can't wait to find out.
Ever seen The Hollywood Shuffle? Making fun of sexist images undermines sexism. Making fun of racist images undermines racism.
Had it been a similarly over the top ad that made fun of an old racist canard, that would be great.
And you still wouldn't get it. "Porn"? Why?
Lovely language, btw. Funny how it's only sick and bigoted after you get done with it. What does that say about you? Letting your inner bigot out to play?
You know what would be refreshing, fuckin'-A refreshing???
If men stopped telling women what we should be interested in.....
estraven | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 1:35 pm | #
So when a member of a traditionally disadvantaged group insists on making a mountain out of a molehill, we're OBLIGATED to give a rats ass what you think?
I'm sorry, but the folks who raised this issue are bringing up something that has less relevance than George F. Will's writings on Baseball.
If someone choose to write about the trivial, there is an obligation to say that the emperor has no clothes.
Lovely language, btw. Funny how it's only sick and bigoted after you get done with it. What does that say about you? Letting your inner bigot out to play?
Yep. The "hey Steve why don't you whistle Dixey" is pretty telling.
He/She's telling him/her self that if Steve shows himself to be sexist enough, then he/she can feel free to tell racist jokes.
Got anything, Ms. Marcotte?
What led you to assume KOS was outraged by women daring to speak?
Anything?
.
...or have I misunderstood the first sentence of your post?
.
Sounds like you had a bad relationship with your mother, by the way, SWR.
Yes I did.
So next you'll admit you can't get anyone to suck your dick, right? Now who's whining?
That's the funniest post on this thread, by far.
Got anything, Ms. Marcotte?
I'm not sure what she means by "ran it on my blog".
Does she mean "ran it on her diary" and she asked him to take it down and he bitched her out?
Amanda may have a grievance here but I think she's phrasing it in a way that's making anybody who hears her feel backed into a corner and defensive about it.
It isn't an ad making fun of porn, its a pornographic ad. An ad making fun of racists isn't racist, a racist joke is. Do you understand context?
My inner bigot? No you see, this is about context again. I'm saying nigger and faggot in order to make a point about racism and homophobia, not to abuse black people and homosexuals. Racism, sexism and homophobia arn't about saying bad words, they are about the systematic bigotries those words reinforce. The offensivness of the words depends upon how they are used.
Now this is a flamewar!!!
Yep. The "hey Steve why don't you whistle Dixey" is pretty telling.
He/She's telling him/her self that if Steve shows himself to be sexist enough, then he/she can feel free to tell racist jokes.
Ever heard of sarcasm? Just goes to show that feminists aren't the only ones lacking a sense of humor or an understanding of irony. (BTW, I'm Black and I completely understood Amanda's point, while it whistled right over your heads.)
Do you understand context?
Yes, I got the context. You just didn't get the content, so playing with the content isn't going to get you anywhere. It was a sendup of the catfight. Get it? Or did you even watch the thing?
Dragging in your own examples of bigotry cannot retroactively prove that the ad was the product of bigotry.
Anything else you need cleared up?
.
Amanda: Americablog has run some pretty steamy beefcake ads. Geared towards gay males, but steamy nonetheless.
If the argument is did Kos fuck up in his reaction, I don't think too many people are going to defend him. Broad brushes, as in this thread, don't accomplice much. I'm sure he lashed out in anger at the people who (literally) said Kos had sold his soul for running the ad. People were talking about leaving Kos the day before he responded.
So I guess what we have here are three different arguments:
1) Is the pie ad sexist? (yes)
2) Should Kos have allowed it to run? (no problem with me)
3) Did Kos go over the line with his response? (yes) He did kinda apologize for that one.
Just for the record, though I dig the porn, I find nothing sexy about fake tits and bukake-esque pie fights.
Amanda may have a grievance here but I think she's phrasing it in a way that's making anybody who hears her feel backed into a corner and defensive about it.
SWR | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 3:03 pm | #
Defensive, hell, I'm waiting for evidence.
Aside from some victim fantasy, I see no reason to say KOS was objecting to women DARING to speak. That's nowhere in the content.
So, if like anon and Xeno, you have to drag bigotry in where it wasn't so you can cry "bigotry," what the fuck is your problem?
This leads straight to KOS' point about "the important shit," as in making shit up to bitch about isn't what KOS is for.
Happily, the pie-whiners are now doing that elsewhere.
.
(BTW, I'm Black and I completely understood Amanda's point, while it whistled right over your heads.)
So you're admitting that if I told Steve to go whistle Dixie I'd be racist?
Amanda: Americablog has run some pretty steamy beefcake ads. Geared towards gay males, but steamy nonetheless.
I tried that, Poika. They're not interested in facts.
.
-out
.
The content is softcore porn, whether the porn is 'serious' or 'comedy' is totally meaningless. I'm quite baffled that you can't understand this?
So next you'll admit you can't get anyone to suck your dick, right? Now who's whining?
That's the funniest post on this thread, by far.
Xeno | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 3:02 pm | #
You know, in some ways it's funny but in some other ways, it proves my point.
1.) Someone comes out and says "yes I did have an abusive relationship with my mother and you're response is "ha ha cool".
2.) Amanda's admitting that "not getting enough" is an insult in her world, that she talks the feminist game yet probably finds herself attracted to abusive studs.
So yeah, it's funny. I'm really smarting after that. Ha. Ha. But if I were getting as much as Brad Pitt then sexism wouldn't bother you.
Hmmm.....so sexism is fine for high-status men.
Amanda Marcotte Speaks For Me.
Yes, Amanda, I'm with you. Let's get some hot nekkid guys rolling about in oil. I'm sick of the "sex" that features women as servers, men as consumers. If T&A and dumb-ass pie fights are sex, it's the most boring, repressed, puritanical bullshit version of it I've seen.
Hearning how anyone who criticized Kos' reaction (more than thirty people, BTW) was humorless, frigid, and man-hating was so original. I've never heard *that* before.
So you're admitting that if I told Steve to go whistle Dixie I'd be racist?
Part of the argument some here have made is that the ad is a parody, a joke, so the people who objected should not have gotten worked up about it. In other words, it's a joke, and if you humorless, sex-hating feminists don't get that it's your problem. The point being that the supposed humor of the ad negates its sexist aspects.
The poster's point was that if humor makes the potentially offensive innocuous, it should apply to racism, homophobia, etc., too. But some of you got bent when a sarcastic, racist joke was made in order to illustrate that point. Why? It was a joke, right? If such humor is okay when aimed at women, why isn't it okay when aimed at Blacks, Hispanics or gays? Because it might be hurtful, demeaning and unfunny to someone who sees it? That was exactly the point he/she was trying to make.
I know that explanation will probably whiz right past some of you, just as the original post did. But that's fine. The more you write on the subject, the better.
The poster's point was that if humor makes the potentially offensive innocuous, it should apply to racism, homophobia, etc., too. But some of you got bent when a sarcastic, racist joke was made in order to illustrate that point.
If this were true then you wouldn't have felt compelleed to tell me that you were black and not white. If the joke stands in and of itself, then you need no appeal to authority.
>>Lovely language, btw. Funny how it's only sick and bigoted after you get done with it. What does that say about you? Letting your inner bigot out to play?
Yep. The "hey Steve why don't you whistle Dixey" is pretty telling.
He/She's telling him/her self that if Steve shows himself to be sexist enough, then he/she can feel free to tell racist jokes.>>
Huh? No, the point of the analogy was that this whole, "Lighten up, you'll feel better," argument applies to racial sensitivity, too. That is, if I can't get pissed off about Softcore Liberals and their sexist crap, race activists don't have the right to get pissed off about ads and other things that use racist imagery in a similarly offensive way. Since this person is clearly arguing that complacent sexism IS wrong, then their choice of analogy illustrates their belief that complacent racism is also wrong.
I'm curious, btw, as to why anyone thinks the ad was attacking people who uncritically consume and enjoy softcore "lesbian" porn and/or objectifying depictions of women, since the ad does so much to titillate those people. Satire is meant to make people reconsider; it doesn't primarily gratify the tastes it's putatively lampooning.
Amanda Marcotte Speaks For Me.
Matt | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 3:17 pm | #
Exactly, porn is a crutch for low status working class men who "aren't getting enough" so it has to be controlled.
Because if low status working class men are allowed access to it, then they're likely to be abusive towards women, right?
That's why we should go to Iraq and confiscate all the porn and replace it with Bibles, right?
Because that porn might just motivate some of those (usually working class) soldiers to abuse some of the local women.
They need guidance from the "enlightened".
Huh? No, the point of the analogy was that this whole, "Lighten up, you'll feel better," argument applies to racial sensitivity, too.
Then why did he/she feel obligated to inform me she/he was black?
Some guilt there methinks.
>>If this were true then you wouldn't have felt compelleed to tell me that you were black and not white. If the joke stands in and of itself, then you need no appeal to authority.>>
Coming out as black is an appeal to authority? Okay, then. I think that this was to rebut a charge of anti-black racism.
1.) Someone comes out and says "yes I did have an abusive relationship with my mother and you're response is "ha ha cool".
You're right, SWR. I was wrong to have written that, and I apologize for it. It was insensitive, and especially bad since I was severely abused by my mother, as well. (A paranoid schizophrenic with violent delusions doesn't make the best parent.) I really should not have made such a vicious remark over something so trivial. Again, I apologize.
This is why I hate engaging in anything remotely resembling a flamewar online. Eventually I will say something I regret. I hope you will accept my apology, though, because it is sincere.
If you called me a transphobe, I would probably come out as a transsexual. If you called me homophobic, I would probably come out as gay. It's true that it's _possible_ for people to harbour extreme prejudice against the minority groups they belong to, but it's less likely. It's a familiar and totally sensible argument. It doesn't bear the kind of strained subtextual analysis you're trying to apply to it.
And, several posters have explained how the comparison does indeed stand on its own.
Hearning how anyone who criticized Kos' reaction (more than thirty people, BTW) was humorless, frigid, and man-hating was so original. I've never heard *that* before.
I think critiquing is fine, so I do take your point.
But it was also thrilling to hear Liberal hetero men with normal libidos (like me) who like to look at attractive women be generally catagorized as insensitive, juvenile, misogynistic troglodytes...sexist swine who are are really no different than racists and who want to, “spew your seed in all the twats you feel like without having to wear a condom or deal with the resulting children.”
'cause I just couldn't get enough of that kind of rhetotric when Andrea Dworkin was alive.
Laura,
you ignorant slut.
Then why did he/she feel obligated to inform me she/he was black?
Some guilt there methinks.
Guilt? Why would I feel guilt? The original poster had been accused of racism for his/her remarks. I merely wanted to point out that I understood whats/he was saying, not as racism but as a sarcastic commentary on the way concerns about sexist "humor" had been excused by some. As piny noted, I said I was Black simply to underline the fact that I was not insulted by what was said, understanding the remarks in the context of this rather contentious discussion.
A week later and people are still angry. Interesting.
I read Kos's statement about the "women's studies set" and understood what he meant, that it wasn't aimed at all women but a certain subset of feminist activists. I didn't care much for the ad and found Kos' explanation good enough.
What annoyed me is the "all women should leave/de-link dkos" hysteria. These women don't speak for me (even though their language implies that they speak for all women kossacks).
Whatever. Should I turn in my feminist credentials if I publicly support Kos?
Guilt? Why would I feel guilt?
Well you explain it. Why did you feel compelled to declare your racial credentials. If the "joke" stood on its own legs, then being black or white wouldn't have mattered.
From where I see it, basically, the whole issue is over whether Markos is sensitive enough.
Don't we have bigger worries than whether one of our allies is sensitive enough?
"Hearing how anyone who criticized Kos' reaction (more than thirty people, BTW) was humorless, frigid, and man-hating was so original. I've never heard *that* before."
I've no desire to go to Kos' site and see this idiotic tempest in a teapot in its full glory (it's quite bad enough here), but I wouldn't desribe the "pie-whiners" (good term, GMT) as "humorless", "frigid" or "man-hating". I would, however, describe them as "presumptuos", "stupidly shooting themselves in the foot", "displaying an almost unseemly overeagerness to turn on their natural allies", "self-defeating", "politically tone-deaf", "lackwits", "simpletons" and "having all the common sense of a lump of refried dogshit".
Anyone remember the almost-entirely manufactured "politcal correctness crisis" of the 90's? That was 99% bullshit, but like all truly effective propaganda, there was a tiny nugget of truth amidst the enormous lie. Don't forget that the term "politically correct" was first coined by those of us on the left to describe a certain subset within our ranks. You know: the sort of mind that might, in all seriousness, descibe a tv ad about Gillgan's Island as "pornographic."
Fucking Gilligan's Island, for crying out loud. A pie fight, for heaven's sakes. Truly one of the Great Issues of our times.
The issue for me was not the ad--I never clicked on it. The issue for me was not Kos's response--he admitted that he over generalized and said that the criticism of THAT was fair.
So what was the issue for me? Censorship. I hate the idea of it. I don't understand how anyone who proports to be progressive would tell a blogger, columnist or journalist what to read, write or run on their site, magazine or newspaper, radio show, etc. Kos had every right to run the ad, people had every right to express their displeasure. No one has a right to tell Kos to take it down because of "offense."
This ad could have been a great starting point for a conversation. Instead it's become a source of rancor and division which the Republicans will use to their advantage.
No one needs to "STFU" or "take it" or focus on "more important" issues. All rational conversation should be encouraged--but that conversation shouldn't include telling other people how they should feel or think or respond, and it definitely shouldn't embrace censorship at any level.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
"the whole issue is over whether Markos is sensitive enough."
No, it's over Democrats pandering to minorities then blind-siding us when we challenge the bottom line, be it votes or money.
I think the question you need to ask yourself, Power User, is "Who are WE?"
The ad is not about Gilligan's Island, it is about softcore porn parodying Gilligan's Island. I continue to be baffled that some people think that because the advert was a parody it somehow wasn't softcore porn? The ad featured two women playing out an erotic fantasy. Whether the porn is a parody of Gilligan's Island, Saving Private Ryan or whatever it is STILL PORN. Is this so difficult to grasp?
Guilt? Why would I feel guilt?
Well you explain it. Why did you feel compelled to declare your racial credentials. If the "joke" stood on its own legs, then being black or white wouldn't have mattered.
Will you tell me that I'm racist agaisnt myself next? If so, can I then conclude that a sarcastic comment such as the one we're discussing disturb you because it stirs up your own guilt at some inner racist feelings you harbor? At what point will the projection and assumptions stop?
For the record, I don't think that you harbor any inner racism, and I know I don't feel any guilt. I simply know that your comments about my supposed guilt have any basis in reality.
I continue to be baffled that some people think that because the advert was a parody it somehow wasn't softcore porn?
I haven't seen it but I'm not going to argue with you that it's not softcore porn.
FWIW, I'd like to see more Democrats taking money from pornographers to use to defend against the Christian coalition and the religious right.
The ad is not about Gilligan's Island, it is about softcore porn parodying Gilligan's Island. I continue to be baffled that some people think that because the advert was a parody it somehow wasn't softcore porn? The ad featured two women playing out an erotic fantasy.
Bullshit.
David Hamilton is softcore porn. The ad was just a silly spoof of a (tacky) erotic fantasy.
Exactly. Here's another analogy*. The HRC can't claim to be for LGB_T_ rights and then specifically exempt the T from ENDA. "Better than Focus on the Family" isn't good enough. HRC does not deserve my money or my complacency. The fact that the HRC is my "natural ally" doesn't matter if the HRC chooses to sell me out.
*And just so we don't get bogged down in pure logical rules of order: I'm not a transsexual.
>>The ad was just a silly spoof of a (tacky) erotic fantasy.>>
...But not a spoof that did anything to make men who actually do think that way about lesbians, porn, and women uncomfortable. The message wasn't, "Gee, maybe we better reconsider this misogynistic stuff," it was, "Hot! Busty! Bimbos! Tune in to The Real Gilligan's Island!" Sex was a selling point, however lightheartedly it was sold. So the "just a joke" thing doesn't really argue against whether or not the ad supported sexist attitudes towards women.
Xeno, for hating flamewars, you sure know how to turn the pot up to boil.
So the "just a joke" thing doesn't really argue against whether or not the ad supported sexist attitudes towards women.
So a woman dressing "provocatively" in real life supports sexist attitudes towards women?
Is that what you're saying?
Xeno, for hating flamewars, you sure know how to turn the pot up to boil.
mndean
Yes, and that is exactly why I hate them. Even though I know I should be temperate and levelheaded, I almost invariably write things I shouldn't. That is why I try to stay out of these things, but, alas, sometimes I relapse.
So the "just a joke" thing doesn't really argue against whether or not the ad supported sexist attitudes towards women.
So a woman dressing "provocatively" in real life supports sexist attitudes towards women?
Is that what you're saying?
Felix Deutsch | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 4:15 pm | #
Um, no. Where do you get that? Do you think that if something is facetious on any level, it necessarily or even probably _doesn't_ support sexism?
Felix, thanks, I needed the laugh; this whole pie fight has been greatly amusing to me. And highly informative. You see, all this time, a lot of us women thought that somehow, liberal men were different from conservative men, and this whole argument shows that we were wrong. At least the conservatives are straighforward about their misogyny while you guys twist yourselves in circles trying to convince us you're not. Hell, it looks like you're trying to convince yourselves; otherwise why fill up a week's worth of diaries and comments all over the blogosphere telling women to get over it?
Or were you just offended by my bawdy language? All I can say is: get over it, it was only one comment on a blog for crissakes!
*bullhorn*
I AM NOT TAKING YOUR FUCKING PORN FROM YOU SO LAY OFF.
I like porn, I look at it, whatever. Who cares? What I don't like is being told that I need to shut up, vote as I'm told and never, ever criticize a man. Well, at least one of "my" men. I can stand by "my" men and criticize the enemy all I want.
Perhaps someone could explain to me exactly what the ad is supposed to be a spoof of.
Gilligan's Island itself? There wasn't any rivalry between Mary Ann and Ginger (there was a hint of it in the episode where Mary Ann got knocked out and thought she was Ginger, but Ginger went along), so it's not like this was riffing off some conflict in the original series.
Spoofing the tradition of the catfight? Sorry, but unless you're going to go with Divine and Lanie Kazan in "Lust in the Dust," it's not sufficiently over-the-top to be spoofing the form itself.
It's a pie fight for titillation value only. Which is all very well and good, but some people find the display of that on a progressive blog to be just one more in the endless series of insults and exclusions and exploitations. Drip, drip, drip.
Laura:
Since when does failure to agree with you make one a misogynist?
And Sheezlebub is right--the ad wasn't sexy because it was so damn unimaginative. But, Sheezle, who am I to tell someone that they shouldn't get off on puritanical, juvenile crap? As long as they aren't trying to do it in my house where the grown-ups have grown-up fun, I don't care.
"You see, all this time, a lot of us women thought that somehow, liberal men were different from conservative men, and this whole argument shows that we were wrong. At least the conservatives are straighforward about their misogyny while you guys twist yourselves in circles trying to convince us you're not."
Why am I suddenly getting a flashback to the dustup over whether men might get the wrong impression if a woman takes her birth control pills in front of them?
Mike
Zuzu, I personally think the ad and probably the show are a pathetic attempt to rewrite the relationship between the two women to be a rivalry, which better fits the modern TV show zeitgeist. Reality shows thrive on tedious competitions. It's an interesting academic question but one we can't get into lest someone think we're stealing his porn from him and gets offended.
I like porn, I look at it, whatever. Who cares? What I don't like is being told that I need to shut up, vote as I'm told and never, ever criticize a man.
Since this situation only exists in your imagination (see: making shit up to bitch about and all comments by GMT), I don't see what the problem is.
Hank,
Since when does failure to agree with you make one a misogynist?
DON'T question the basic (base?) belief of The Dworkin People.
Doing so might provoke extreme reactions.
On one side, we have hairy legged upper middle class white girls who want something to complain about because they are jealous of the attractiveness of those girls in the video, and because they can't find a decent man/didn't get along with their fathers. On the other side, we have porn obsessed alpha male frat boy types, who now that they are in college and no longer simply give girls roofies, pretend to be progressive to get women but still harbor a deep lingering resentment towards women because they didn't get laid enough in high school. Now that is settled, we can move onto the important issues...I think the Jacko verdict comes in soon.
And now we are complete with the ugly girls who can't get a man argument. If only you knew, nick, if only.
I think the Jacko verdict comes in soon.
If he's guilty of fiddling with small boys, this proves his woman-hating.
And now we are complete with the ugly girls who can't get a man argument.
If you've got nothing, just try taking a sarcastic comment for a real opinion.
After all the other strawpersons, I guess it doesn't matter anymore anyway.
Amanda, I so wish I were 25 years younger and living in Austin!
If only you knew, nick, if only.
SEND PICS!!11!1
Thank you felix. My humor may be bad, but its not subtle. I just think this whole argument is interesting not because of the ad in question (not into either gilligan's island, soft core or whatever you want to call it, or the girl on girl thing, so it's not because I am worried about amanda taking my porn away), but because of the various assumptions that people bring to this argument that seem to make everyone in this debate talk past eachother.
Hank, I wasn't aware that I was demanding agreement on anything, especially from you, since it looks like this is your first post on the thread, but hey, join the fun.
Like Amanda, I like some porn, and I really don't give a shit about the ad. But I do get pissed when people pretend to be interested in women's issues, then call us whiners when we address an issue important to us. Calling Amanda a troll is just precious, really. I watched from the sidelines at pandagon when she joined; she was savaged left and right immediately just for being there, and is still savaged daily on her women's issue posts. By progressives. So forgive me when I'm cynical about how much some guys really care about our opinions and interests. To me, the reaction from Kos and Steve here reminds me of Rush when he's called on some of his rhetoric: "But I'm an entertainer!" Or Coulter's vile spew "It's a joke!" Uh huh. Right, you're just a blogger. Unfortunately, a progressive blogger within the top ten. You want to be taken seriously, but don't want to deal with the shitstorm you created with your dismissive comments. Just like Rush.
It's only an ad, I agree. But the resulting pie fight in the community has managed to show how some people truly feel about women in politics, and it isn't very pretty. And a lot of us won't shut up; if you can't take our opinions, turn off the comments.
You don't see Republicans in-fighting like this. Is some basic party discipline too much to ask? From both sides. Thin-skinned goddamned Democrats, always eager to form the circular firing squad. WTF is wrong with Kos? Nice diplomatic responce, way to go, idiot. And Gilliard, were you going out of your way to sound like a sexist asshole for some specific reason, or just for the hell of it? Jesus fucking wept. Women are a huge part of the base and they demand to be taken seriously. And yes, if you try to brush them off, they will just get angrier. As well they might. RESPECT, dumbasses.
As usual, I suspect the "feminists are ugly and hate sex" argument is really a weird way of asking for some kind of sexual performance. Can't get girls' attention any other way, can we?
Oh and /b, you'd have to fight it out with my smoking hot boyfriend.
I am very confused about your comment, amanda? Who was seeking some kind of sexual performance?
Amanda. Laura. I'm going to list a few things. Tell me if they sound reasonable to you.
What you want:
1.) Some control over Kos's ad policy in exchange for the work you put into his site.
2.) Some increased awareness on the part of "liberal men" about their own complicity in the patriarchal system.
3.) Some increased representation of women at the top of the Democratic party. Perhaps nominating Hillary for President but also some more representation in the Democratic party as a whole.
4.) Continued support for abortion rights and gay marriage. I don't know if you believe in not supporting candidates (like John Kerry) who don't support these laws fully.
Am I missing anything?
You don't see Republicans in-fighting like this. Is some basic party discipline too much to ask? From both sides. Thin-skinned goddamned Democrats, always eager to form the circular firing squad. WTF is wrong with Kos? Nice diplomatic response, way to go, idiot. And Gilliard, were you going out of your way to sound like a sexist asshole for some specific reason, or just for the hell of it? Jesus fucking wept. Women are a huge part of the base and they demand to be taken seriously. And yes, if you try to brush them off, they will just get angrier. As well they might. RESPECT, dumbasses.
And now we are complete with the ugly girls who can't get a man argument. If only you knew, nick, if only.
Um...
And quit picking on feminists because you can't get someone to suck your dick.
I'm just saying, if you're going to use sarcasm, be able to read it when other people use it.
OK, left for a couple hours and got a couple of flames. Fine by me.
To Matthew Saroff: no one is obligated "to give a rats ass" what any minority thinks about anything. Just said it would be refreshing if for once men didn't think they had the right to TELL us WHAT to think. Like it would be refreshing if they didn't arrogate to themselves the right to decide just exactly what constitutes "making a mountain out a molehill."
Grand Moff, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Call that whining if you want, but your definition is in that case highly idiosyncratic. To say that women "whine" is one of the oldest tricks in the book to discredit their opposing opinion. Just infantilize us, that's right. When we don't bow down to men's definition of the important (i.e., a "mountain") vs. the insignificant (i.e., "molehill"), we are whiners. And whining "when men don't give us what we want"--man, you just don't get it. The point is that we thought we were in a venue where we (ya know, women) could co-determine (okay, I admit the idea that Kos is a community is pure fiction, but one that seemed operable for a while) what is of value to progressives. Apparently NOT.
Steve feels he has the credentials to decide what feminist theory is "bullshit" ("a lot of it"), and says:
"those women needed to shut the fuck up, because it was all about them, not the site or the ad. It was about a silly ad offending them.
"The kind of near psycho-theraputic responses were so over the top you have to wonder what the fuck some of them were thinking."
Boy, do you ever reveal how goddamn clueless, fucking clueless, you are. "All about them"? Jesus. I don't even know where to start. "Near psycho-therapeutic"? What does that even mean?
Then I'm informed by the apparently psychiatric-trained SWR that my response to the ad came about because of how I was raised, or my relationship with men, or whatever. What bullshit. This is the latest thing to be trotted out by so-called liberal men when we Feminazis don't laugh at purportedly hilarious "spoofs," "jokes," and "send-ups" when they demean women. Or if women object to being stared at and salivated over. I've seen that on Kos: oh, you were probably sexually abused. What a crock.
And whenever we object to stuff like the pie ad, we're accused of being elitist, because if we were Real People (i.e., women making minimum wage), we Wouldn't Have Time to Worry About This. Guess what? When I was active in the women's movement, most of us worked full-time and had kids, and many of us were students besides; many were single moms; and still we had time to get outraged about stuff like this! Imagine! We were capable of multi-tasking! Go figure.
And nick is right -- this is the dumbest goddamn argument in the history of the blogosphere, and the level of juvenile name-calling, strawman-burning and outright seething hatred to which all concerned have stooped is pretty much the proof. It doesn't matter who wins, cause we're all losers (myself included for commenting on this at all).
Then I'm informed by the apparently psychiatric-trained SWR that my response to the ad came about because of how I was raised, or my relationship with men, or whatever. What bullshit.
Everybody's response to a sexually explict image is influence by how he/she was brought up.
Perfect example. In Europe, you see topless women in advertising all the time. This would shock *any* American, liberal, conservative, male, female.
Similarly, in Scandinavia, the amount of violence on American TV is shocking. I can't see a breast on TV on Saturday afternoon. But I can see someone locked in a cage and burned alive, tortured, raped.
Some women (and some men) have a stronger reaction to sexual imagery because they were abused as children. I don't see how any reasonable person can argue against this.
I haven't seen the ad so I have no idea what caused such a powerful response but my gut feeling is that a lot of people think of the Daily Kos as their home, as some kind of safe place.
This will lead to conflict.
Some women see it as their safe haven from pornography.
Some men see it as their safe place from puritanism.
These two groups will inevitably clash. But it's the way people are arguing about it that doesn't speak well of either group.
My stimata's cooler that your stigmata...
"Just said it would be refreshing if for once men didn't think they had the right to TELL us WHAT to think."
And it might be nice if men who don't go along with WHAT you think aren't immediately branded as all but two-steps from being rapists.
Mike
"Calling Amanda a troll is just precious, really. I watched from the sidelines at pandagon when she joined; she was savaged left and right immediately just for being there, and is still savaged daily on her women's issue posts. By progressives."
As somebody who's pretty much stopped ready Pandagon because of her posts, is it at all possible that she just might deserve some "savaging" because of the quality and tone of her writing?
Mike
she was savaged left and right immediately just for being there, and is still savaged daily on her women's issue posts. By progressives.
Perhaps these are the same sort of "progressives" who hasten to call Barak Obama a house Negro the minute he says something that displeases them (I'm thinking specifically of an Atrios thread from last week - I think Atrios deleted most of that crap).
SWR, it's so nice to know that you've got Women All Figured Out.
SWR, it's so nice to know that you've got Women All Figured Out.
Well help me then.
My opinion is that different people have different reactions to sexually explicit images.
Some people are more offended by them than others. This reaction is often influenced by their childhoods.
What are you saying? That there's only one possible reaction to any image, argument, movie?
I find this troubling. Let's get off Kos for the moment. Who determines the reaction?
Let's take the Janet Jackson breast incident. I personally found it pretty silly. A lot of people found it offensive.
Who decides?
I'm still confused by those who say they "like some porn" in response to this whole flap. If you like some porn, doesn't that suggest that the pie-fight image/sequence isn't by nature, in and of itself, exploitative or sexist? Or is it the fighting aspect that makes it exploitative/sexist? Basically, my attitude is that the ad is as sexist as a Victoria's Secret ad or a Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition ad -- maybe somewhere above that, but somewhere below that softcore threshold. Yes, it's leering and objectifying. But isn't titillation-for-straight-men always that way?
Amanda says she likes some pornography but, on Kos, this ad suggests "No Girls Allowed." Bitch Ph.D. laces into the ad and then tells approvingly of a male friend who perks up at hearing about Mira Sorvino checking out Bitch Ph.D.'s bare bosom.
So from those two examples, it's mostly the context that determines the meaning, and whether it's (to paraphrase _Spinal Tap_) sexy or sexist. But that would suggest also that the pie-fight ad itself isn't offensive, it's the presence of the ad on Kos; it's the unexpectedness of the juxtaposition. Do I have that right? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm honestly confused.
(The reaction-to-the-reaction is not at all confusing. Markos was WAY over the top. IMHO Steve is too.)
(And the oiled-up men counterexample is kind of a strawman. I would guess that if someone made an oiled-up male-on-male ad and bought a spot on Kos, Kos wouldn't think twice before running it. And maybe I'm naive, but I don't think that people would leave over it -- unless it was viewed as a degrading or minstrel-show-esque representation of gay men, in which case gay men might leave.)
Zuzu, as we all know, men understand women far better than women ever will understand ourselves, 'cause...well, I never did figure out why. But surely if you disagree with being treated like a bimbo, it's a psychological disorder, since healthy women love it.
Flip, thanks for the intelligent questions. That's the sort of discussion we need to have, but unfortunately, it too quickly escalates into "feminists hate sex!" and it's all over.
Flip, thanks for the intelligent questions. That's the sort of discussion we need to have, but unfortunately, it too quickly escalates into "feminists hate sex!" and it's all over.
What not try answering them instead of continuing to fling insults?
You should note the " " which you just happened to ommit during the quotation process.
PowerBook, when you cut and paste, the winks and smileys don't make it. I doubt that was intentional.
Let's take the Janet Jackson breast incident. I personally found it pretty silly. A lot of people found it offensive.
Who decides?
I do, for me.
But surely if you disagree with being treated like a bimbo, it's a psychological disorder, since healthy women love it.
Actually you'll find that men who openly disagree with you *are not* treating you like a bimbo.
They're simply disagreeing with you.
But I'm getting to the point where I think you're not even going to try to engage anybody here. Thus the charge of your being a "troll".
You bait and wait for a response. When someone insults you you say "see I'm write".
When someone honestly tries to engage you you come back with a one liner.
But once again, what is it that you want specifically from Kos? Do you want some control over his ad policy? Do you think that anybody who maintains a diary there should have say in what ads run through his/her section?
Or do you just think that by relentlessly going on the attack you're somehow going to call attention to your agenda (whatever it is). What is it?
Do you want more women in positions of power at the Democratic party? Do you want to run more female candidates? Do you want less compromise on social issues?
What?
Who decides?
I do, for me.
driftglass | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 6:17 pm | #
And if Michael Powell or William Bennet doesn't like it, they bully the TV stations until they're all so paranoid that they refuse to run Saving Private Ryan.
And if Michael Powell or William Bennet doesn't like it...
That's a different matter.
I decide for myself what I find offensive.
Mr. or Ms. Righteous T. Pecksniff deciding in the name of their Worker's Paradise or Evangelical Nanny State what I shouldn't be allowed to see -- a microsecond blur of a breast or flag-draped coffins -- is a different beast altogether.
Thanks, Amanda.
I guess I should have admitted at least one other option in my close, which is that the *fighting* and/or the *messiness* of the particular pie-fight images made them more offensive than garden-variety T&A. Was it on Atrios or Kos that there were those ads for the environmental magazine, where the image was female legs in a very short apple-green minidress? Were there people who were offended by that? It seems like a perfect storm of the particular image, the particular moment (after the NARAL scuffle), and the particular reaction by the guy running things. Do you (the collective 'you') think a different image would have set people off as much?
Do you want more women in positions of power at the Democratic party? Do you want to run more female candidates? Do you want less compromise on social issues?
Yes.
On a much less important, but more topical note, I'd also like Kos to be polite to his readers. He can run whatever ads he wants. He could have ignored the complaints. This is a guy who probably gets thousands of abusive emails a month, between one thing and another. He gets death threats. Yet for some weird reason, he decided to throw a tantrum about a few people who emailed to complain about an ad? WTF?
Maybe he was right to be pissed off at those individuals. In that case, how about hashing that out in private instead of picking a really nasty internal fight with every feminist and feminist sympathizer within earshot.
It...was....a.....stupid.....fucking....ad.
My god, does no one have a sense of proportion here? "Soft-core porn"? Yes, in the exact same sense THIS post is a novel. It's got words and sentences and some form of structure, ergo it's a novel.
So to anyone persisting in calling it "soft-core porn". You're a moron.I know this will offend you, but I don't care. Seriously. Soft core porn? Soft-core porn? Good lord. Any sympathy I might have had with you disapeared at that point. Soft-core porn.....
It's meant to be titillating. I certainly agree. Of course, I find Abby from NCIS to be quite titillating myself, but I'm pretty sure no one's going to call her soft-core porn.
If that ad is your threshold for "soft-core porn" I think we can safely say you're humorless, thin-skinned, and utterly lacking a sense of proportion. Whatever valid complaints might exist over that ad, "soft-core porn" puts you squarly into the "ignore the crazy rantings" category.
Do you want more women in positions of power at the Democratic party? Do you want to run more female candidates? Do you want less compromise on social issues?
Yes.
So does that mean we don't support a candidate like John Kerry or Hillary Clinton?
Yes.
On a much less important, but more topical note, I'd also like Kos to be polite to his readers. He can run whatever ads he wants. He could have ignored the complaints.
Judging by this thread, my gut feeling if that it wasn't quite so simple. I don't see it as a polite e-mail from Amanda followed by a snippy response from Kos. I'm betting it was an escalating series of confrontations that ended pretty much like this thread is ending, with both parties just refusing to engage the other. I'm thinking that at a point Kos just threw his hands up and said "oh fuck it it's not worth it."
Just a note -- if you WEREN'T one of the soft-core porn idiots, Kos really should have been a bit more diplomatic with his response.
Of course, judging by this thread he probably had an inbox full of idiotic email from people accusing him of running demeaning soft-core porn imagery....I'd be a bit pissy myself.
Pi(e): a non-terminating, non-repeating decimal.
Well help me then.
My opinion is that different people have different reactions to sexually explicit images.
Some people are more offended by them than others. This reaction is often influenced by their childhoods.
What are you saying? That there's only one possible reaction to any image, argument, movie?
You're either being dense or dishonest.
Despite being told over and over that many of the people who were upset by Kos' reaction WERE NOT TERRIBLY OFFENDED BY THE AD, you persist in concluding that anyone who has stated so MUST be offended by the sexual content of the ad and if so, MUST have some kind of pathological aversion to sex caused by an abusive Daddy.
Let me break it down for you: regardless of the content of the ad, the fact that Kos chose to dismiss his critics as the "women's studies set" says a lot about his mindset and how much a part of the progressive cause he views women as being.
And now we have Steve and his ever-so-helpful comment that anyone who complained is a princess who got through college because the professor wanted to fuck her. And the usual comments about hairy legs and elitism. And now you and your Daddy theory.
Honestly, I'm surprised nobody's said anything about Midol.
Ah, shit, I hate Haloscan.
SWR:
What you want:
1.) Some control over Kos's ad policy in exchange for the work you put into his site. **How many times does it have to be said that it is NOT about the ad itself?? For your info, when Josh Marshall got flak for his Coulter ad, I was miffed but as he explained, it's about keeping the site up. I have no problem with that. Take their money, that's fine, because IT IS NOT ABOUT THE AD**
2.) Some increased awareness on the part of "liberal men" about their own complicity in the patriarchal system. **That's what this is about**
3.) Some increased representation of women at the top of the Democratic party. Perhaps nominating Hillary for President but also some more representation in the Democratic party as a whole. **I'm against Hillary getting the nom, don't know why that's always the assumption. Representation would be nice, but respect would be nicer.**
4.) Continued support for abortion rights and gay marriage. I don't know if you believe in not supporting candidates (like John Kerry) who don't support these laws fully. **I would prefer all these divisive issues under one heading of basic civil rights, but I realize I can't have everything. I backed Kerry as did all of us because he was the nominee and anyone is better than the thief in the white house; then I watched as he threw away the election with stupid answers to easy questions. I'm only a woman, I know, but I do understand the concept of priorities.**
Despite being told over and over that many of the people who were upset by Kos' reaction WERE NOT TERRIBLY OFFENDED BY THE AD
I don't buy it. Amanda never stopped to outline the conflict between her and Kos to people like me (who aren't quite so familiar with it as some others). What I'm seeing is a lot of posts about nude men sitting in oil, the definition of pornography, how sexism relates to racism, etc.
You could have headed off what you perceive as a misunderstanding merely by saying "here's what happened between Kos and some of his readers".
But you didn't. You baited. You insulted. You got personal. You did exactly what you're accusing Kos of doing.
DG,
Pi is, e is, and so is Pi(e). Very nice!
"the fact that Kos chose to dismiss his critics as the "women's studies set" says a lot about his mindset and how much a part of the progressive cause he views women as being."
Now see, what kind of criticisms was that "women's studies set" comment made in response to? I find it hard to believe that Kos got a bunch of relatively genial, gently reproachful messages and just snapped back at them.
Mike
You can buy it, or you can not. Doesn't change the fact that some of us (can't speak for all of us) didn't give a fuck about the ad. I didn't even notice the whole shitstorm until cracks like "here come the menstruating she-bitches" started flying. And they didn't let up. They still haven't.
People were offended by the tone taken. I'm quite sure Kos got rude emails on the subject. I'm quite sure Kos gets rude emails on all kinds of subjects. His reaction to this one was, shall we say, less than respectful. People got angry about it. And other people have spent days, weeks now telling them how stupid, underexed, hairy-legged, and humorless they are for taking offense in the first place.
It's a crock of shit.
1.) Some control over Kos's ad policy in exchange for the work you put into his site. **How many times does it have to be said that it is NOT about the ad itself?? For your info, when Josh Marshall got flak for his Coulter ad, I was miffed but as he explained, it's about keeping the site up. I have no problem with that. Take their money, that's fine, because IT IS NOT ABOUT THE AD**
So I'm pretty much acting as your standin Kos? If I respect you more, that means he does? Huh? If this is a personal issue between you two, I can't possibly offer you anything (which would be an apology from him).
.) Some increased awareness on the part of "liberal men" about their own complicity in the patriarchal system. **That's what this is about**
I'm not sure exactly how I could demonstrate something like this. Do you want me to pretend to agree with you when I don't? Do you want me to be more gentle arguing with you than I am with men? When I got into it with "Larry" about Israel and "anti-semitism" I was brutal with him (and he with me). If I met you in person, it would probably be different but to me you're confusing an interaction on the web with gender relations.
3.) Some increased representation of women at the top of the Democratic party. Perhaps nominating Hillary for President but also some more representation in the Democratic party as a whole. **I'm against Hillary getting the nom, don't know why that's always the assumption. Representation would be nice, but respect would be nicer.**
So in hard politics, what does this mean? I could prove I respect women by voting for Hillary (and I did btw when she ran for the Senate). But what if she's running against a man who's better on social issues than she is?
You could have headed off what you perceive as a misunderstanding merely by saying "here's what happened between Kos and some of his readers".
But you didn't. You baited. You insulted. You got personal. You did exactly what you're accusing Kos of doing
I'm going to assume that the "you" here refers to Amanda, not me.
And to that, I say, this has been going on for about a week now, so if you need a remedial tutorial, it's not up to Amanda to provide it.
SWS, Amanda ran that ad on her own blog.
Yeah, maybe some people were rude to Kos. Like I said, this is a guy who gets death threats.
(Not from feminist critics of his ad policy, I'll venture.)
Ultimately, he's the one who lost his cool and berated feminists at large because of some personal issues with random people on the internet wrote him rude email.
He's an influential figure who runs a successful company. I expect better. He's also a Democratic strategist. Part of his mission is to help build a movement. Picking stupid fights with is own base is utterly counterproductive.
And to that, I say, this has been going on for about a week now, so if you need a remedial tutorial, it's not up to Amanda to provide it.
So I have to agree with you (even though you refuse to clearly explain your position) because you're a woman and I should be afraid of being called sexist?
It's about making women feel like they belong--nudie shots on the front page can and often do function as a way to say "No Girls Allowed".
Freakin' amen. To me this is the heart of it. I'm a guy, and while not necessarily personally offended by the ad in question, it's not something I want to see on a site that I might consider a refuge from our materialist trash culture that I avoid at all costs. Yeah, I could see the same ad on TV if I fucking had one. I hate it, I avoid it, and I don't want to see it anywhere where I discuss progressive politics.
To me an ad like that on a site like Kos's is like finding out there's a sex offender living in my happy hippy nudist camp. Okay, that might be a bit extreme, but...
So anyhow... if Kos's community isn't inclusive, people will leave and find one, or form one, that is. And after a while of that happening, he won't have to worry about people objecting to advertisements because he won't have any.
By the way, I just came over here from billmon, and was highly impressed with the last few entries he's posted. I come from that to this conversation... it's like heading to McDonald's after eating at the best steakhouse in town.
No SWR, now you're looking for insukts where there aren't any. The whole sordid even has taken place in public forums, and if you want the back history, go read it. Don't expect someone to rehash it for you. If you want to see what actually happened and what was actually said, fire up your google and have at it.
Now see, what kind of criticisms was that "women's studies set" comment made in response to? I find it hard to believe that Kos got a bunch of relatively genial, gently reproachful messages and just snapped back at them.
Christ on a cracker, how many times does this have to be explained? As Lindsay pointed out, the man's received death threats, and he decides to get snappy about this issue? He could have ignored it, he could have, oh, ENGAGED THE CRITICISMS DIRECTLY, but instead he just waved them off as being feminists with their panties in a bunch over nothing, because women's issues aren't Important Shit.
Think about it. How many times have progressive viewpoints been dismissed by conservatives (or the SCLM) in just this way? And doesn't that irritate you?
Yeah, maybe some people were rude to Kos. Like I said, this is a guy who gets death threats.
(Not from feminist critics of his ad policy, I'll venture.)
But do you see how this just might resemble the kind of "manufactured outrage" the right throws at him all the time.
It's the mercenaries. It's Zehpyr Teachout. It's private e-mails. It's a lot about nothing.
And FWIW, accusing "liberal men" of being sexist is exactly what the right does all the time. That's why they use Michelle Malkin as their front woman for their most radical white supremicist arguments. They know someone will attack her and they can cry sexism.
That's why they use right-wing Hispanic judges. They can accuse you of racism if you object to their politics.
That's why Jonah Goldberg wrote in to accuse Steve of "racism" becaus of his coarse language.
And the people accusing Steve of ignoring women's issues the way the Democrats used to ignore Jim Crow, it's just not the equivalent.
He's not saying "I don't support abortion rights" or more women in power or gay marriage.
He's saying "I'm a coarse asshole but this is the way I talk so deal".
You're criticizing his mannerisms, not his politics.
if you need a remedial tutorial, it's not up to Amanda to provide it.
I'll repeat it here again, SWR. This argument been brewing for quite some time. The response to the ad is what broke the camel's back. If you want some background info, leave this thread and come see our blogs (see the links that lead to our homepages?). There is plenty of info there for you and a slew of links to follow for additional context.
Oh and by the way, I will admit right now that I've never been a fan or regular of dailykos.com so there is no need to tell me to go somewhere else. This is more an illustration of something that has always bothered me about the top cool kids lefty blogs.
So I have to agree with you (even though you refuse to clearly explain your position) because you're a woman and I should be afraid of being called sexist?
You don't have to agree with me at all, and I don't have to do your research for you.
I accuse liberal men of being sexist when they speak like...a sexist. Not so complicated, that.
I'll repeat it here again, SWR. This argument been brewing for quite some time. The response to the ad is what broke the camel's back. If you want some background info, leave this thread and come see our blogs (see the links that lead to our homepages?). There is plenty of info there for you and a slew of links to follow for additional context.
So let's see, I'm a sexist pig. I can't get laid. I'm demeaning women. It's funny that I had an abusive relationship with my mother. Ha. Ha.
I think I might have enough information right in this thread to come to the conclusion that nobody's pure as driven snow here.
All you want from me seems to be more GUILT. I'm almost afraid to read any of your blogs. I'm starting to feel like a 7 year old boy again.
Damn me and my "juvenile jollies".
Not guilt, SWR.
Just getting off your ass and doing your own reading about the issue instead of asking everyone else to spoon-feed you.
You don't have to agree with me at all, and I don't have to do your research for you.
Then what's the point of this discussion at all, to label a couple of intials on the web as "sexist".
Why not cut out the name calling and actually try to summarize your position.
You may disagree with my argument that your childhood influences your reaction to an image, but it's not name calling, and I admitted to the same tendency myself.
In fact, when I said "oh here's how I probably react because of my childhood" the response was "oh you just can't get a blowjob loser".
How do you expect me to react to that? Apologize to you?
Just getting off your ass and doing your own reading about the issue instead of asking everyone else to spoon-feed you.
zuzu | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 7:04 pm | #
"Spoon feed"?
"Juvenile Jollies"?
Comeon. It would take a saint not to go all Freudian on your ass when you use words like this.
"As Lindsay pointed out, the man's received death threats, and he decides to get snappy about this issue? He could have ignored it, he could have, oh, ENGAGED THE CRITICISMS DIRECTLY, but instead he just waved them off as being feminists with their panties in a bunch over nothing, because women's issues aren't Important Shit."
Ah, so people are allowed to (possibly) be rude and insulting to Kos, but he's not allowed to respond in kind?
Here's a hint. If you want women's issues to be treated as "Important Shit", you'd better learn how to talk about them without
A. Disproportionate anger
or
B. Lengthly diatribes on the patriarcy.
Mike
Some of us have summarized out positions, over and over again. What kind of response do we get? Insults. No engagement in dialogue, no sharing of viewpoints to maybe reach in the middle.
cclough,
It's a fucking ad for a TV show. Not a call for women to work at the Bunny Ranch or make porn. Or find Russian wives.
Here's reality: you aren't owed shit. Not one fucking thing. You want respect, go earn it. Stop whining about a small ad which got your back up. Your whining makes you look exactly like the right depicts feminists: humorless scolds.
steve_gilliard | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 8:02 am | #
Hm, yep, that's productive. So I responded:
The ad itself didn't bother me. If you read what most people have been saying, it's the fallout and general crappy attitude since that has bothered people. I didn't notice the ad - it's not like women selling things is unusual.
Sure, everyone is owed basic respect, if only in the form of being left alone, unless and until they do something to afrront you. The person next to me on the train deserves my respect, because they are a person, just like me. I have always been under the impression that basic respect is the premise of human rights. I'm angry about the torture of prisoners - because of basic human respect. I'm angry at the treatment of Native Americans - out of basic human respect. And I'm upset at the treatment of people on online communities as a result of this whol "pie fight" monstrosity for the same reason. Sure, people get angry online, that is to be expected, and usually it is obvious that someone is angry about an issue. No biggie. When the attacks become personally directed, that is an issue.
Like you said, you don't have to agree with me, I don't have to agree with you. Don't assume you know me or what I do, or that I'm sitting at a cushy desk job because I disagree with you.
You had to have known when you posted on this topic that people have strong feelings about it. Did you expect them to remain quiet to keep you happy?
When I see a group of people jump all over another group of people in very insulting terms in a community I participate in, I'll say something. Always will.
cclough | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 8:14 am | #
Know what I've heard back? From anyone? Bupkiss. People have tried very hard to talk about it in at least mostly civil tones.
Know what I've heard back? From anyone? Bupkiss. People have tried very hard to talk about it in at least mostly civil tones.
cclough | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 7:10 pm | #
The main problem for me with your argument is that your DEMANDING that I don't question your assumption that "it's not about the ad" and that if I don't agree with you here I'm a sexist pig.
Sorry. But you can't have it both ways. You honestly remind me of the way the right argues.
Pick a fight about a trivial issue than proclaim loudly over and over again that the original issue is irrelevent, that it's the "behavior" of the people you accused.
You problem seems to be that nobody's kissing your ass. If that makes me a "sexist" so be it. I've also been accused of being an anti-semite, anti-Catholic, a racist.
Maybe I'm a bit of all of them. But get in line. Accusing "liberal men" of "insensitivity" is almost a cliche these days.
Being abandoned by the only political party that moderately represents us is not a petty issue, SWR. If you had read our blogs you would see that this is, in fact, not about the ad, or even about Kos. It's about Democrats in general and how Kos's statements summed up a point against sub-groups that many of us resent.
I'm not really sure what you're fighting for, SWR, or what you're against. Usually we're on your side. Allies.
And I'm out for sushi.
I've never called you a sexist pig. Not once. I've called no one a sexist pig that I haven't spoken to face to face. I didn't demand that you not question where I was coming from about it not being about the ad for me. You just never seemed to hear, and assume I WAS talking about the ad. So I said where I was coming from on it. Again.
I've never expected anyone online to kiss my ass. I do not expect to be cursed at, accused of fucking my way through college, or have people assume that I don't work as hard as they do because I have a differing opinion.
I haven't insulted anyone in this thread, I have personally attacked no one in this whole sordid mess. I expect the same respect as I give to other people.
When someone honestly tries to engage you you come back with a one liner.
SWR
are you kidding me? that's YOUR m.o.
Interesting to see that the battle still rages. Thank goodness I'm all out of gasoline and matches.
SWR, I refuse to engage you until you admit that a) I ran the ad on my own blog and b) my problem was with Kos's sexist condescending to the female half of his base, and not with the ad.
I don't hate sex, though I do admit that I love it far too much to allow someone who finds such stuff to be the height of titillation into my home, because I'd write him off as a 2-minuter.
**All you want from me seems to be more GUILT. I'm almost afraid to read any of your blogs. I'm starting to feel like a 7 year old boy again.**
SWR, I am convinced we have discovered your particular problem, since this seems to be a trigger issue for you. Please get help, ASAP.
I'm not calling anyone sexist.
Kos shouldn't use the largest liberal blog in the world to blast random anonymous emailers who don't like his ads. It's tacky. It's also needlessly divisive.
If he's going to address these complaints on the blog, he should confine his comments to those who actually complained. Drifting into his personal theories about the women's studies set is inappropriate and off-topic. Kos has more or less conceded this much.
Kos can't afford not to think about his own brand. The advertising policy can enhance or detract from the dKos brand. His reaction to his readers and their feedback also reflects on the kind of operation he's running. I agree with Steve G.--every liberal blogger has a vested interest in Kos's popularity and profitability. I like Kos and I like his site. I want to see his enterprise thrive and grow in the years to come.
SWR, I refuse to engage you until you admit that a) I ran the ad on my own blog and b) my problem was with Kos's sexist condescending to the female half of his base, and not with the ad.
So let's see, 100 posts ago when I asked you to clarify what you meant by "ran that ad on your own blog" (I thought it was a Kos diary) you responded with "you don't get blowjobs do you".
When I asked you to summarize your conflict with Kos, you responded that I should go read the fucking site.
You know, I'm half tempted to "engage" you but then I remember I went through 5 years of therapy precisely to learn how I don't fucking have to engage people like you.
Thanks, Lindsay. I just made a similiar point at Pandagon, that this is about making the "big tent" live up to its name. I've found that I don't agree with all feminists on the subjects of sex and porn and whatnot, but I've found that with the exception of the very, very rare one who just acts like I've sold out to the other side, most of those I can disagree with and still get along as long as I'm respectful of their reasons. Of course, that means I have to think about what they say and consider the very uncomfortable implications instead of just lashing out defensively.
**He's an influential figure who runs a successful company. I expect better. He's also a Democratic strategist. Part of his mission is to help build a movement. Picking stupid fights with is own base is utterly counterproductive.**
This is why my "panties are in a bunch." Whether Kos or Steve and Atrios "can run their blogs the way they like" is true or not, now that they're leaders in the progressive community, they have a responsibility to be inclusive, if only because that's how we advertise.
Which, to be fair, can be really hard to do.
SWR, how hard does it have to be to understand, "I ran the ad on my blog"? No, really, how hard?
I was responding to your psychoanalysis of me, that my feminism and respect for women's opinions must be a sign of some deep issues with men. I figured you must have your own sexual hang-ups to get so defensive about such a silly, silly ad. Also I wanted to see if you could take what you're dishing out, and that answered my question--you're still gnawing on it. Hit a nerve?
**I went through 5 years of therapy precisely to learn how I don't fucking have to engage people like you.**
And apparently, it didn't take. I'm embarrassed to have engaged you at all.
(really, get help)
I was responding to your psychoanalysis of me, that my feminism and respect for women's opinions must be a sign of some deep issues with men.
OK. The fact that you and Laura are seething with hostility against me, someone you've never met, don't know, haven't interacted with extensively even online, really proves how free you are of any "issues" with men.
And I will take Laura's advice and "get help." It's good advice. This wasting time online bashing heads with anonymous text proves I need it.
Thanks for your advice. Good luck in your feud with Kos. But this is pointless.
Yes, amanda, but i don't think everyone (or anyone) here was saying that the ad in question was the sexiest thing on earth. As I said before, it's not by any means my cup of tea (and I don't even drink tea, which puts it far down on the list), nevertheless, this argument has been dominated by many people with perceived perceptions of the other sex that are evidence of deeper problems. I would bet that if you put all these people arguing here together in a room and discussed almost any other non-gender related issue that we disagreed on we could have a reasonable argument without constantly questioning others motives as you (and others) do. The ad was inoffensive (but lame) to me, it was offensive to others for reasons I will admit i don't entirely understand, but the things both you and steve have said (and i'll quote them if you wish) cross the line between honest disagreement and disparaging the other sex in a way that is more offensive than the ad in question. I love this blog but talking about girls and professors who want to fuck them is going to far. Similarly, I think Amanda is one of the best bloggers I read but basically implying that everyone who disagrees on this is concerned about getting their porn taken away is beneath your standards. I realize that a lot of emotional things are involved with this but everyone needs to step back and realize that we all agree on 99 percent of things.
In closing, rock and roll!
Also, give SWR a break. He clearly has issues that he has tried to deal with, and to make fun of that shit just isn't funny.
You know, let me say in the beginning that I don't have a problem with the ads, which I have never seen but have heard plenty about. I'm gonna assume that the ad featured white women, done by white men. I have more than enough problems with BET which has rap artists featuring black women in all stages of booty shaking stages, then calling them bitches for the bling and not expecting this affect sisters. Bastards.
First off, the ad is nothing more than soft porn, pure and simple. It was made by men for men. They love this sort of thing for whatever reason, and it is not in any way shape or form lesbianic. It is little girlish, hand muffed, not blood drawing cat fighting, which really seems to turn men on, and that is why the ad was made; because it could be porn without being porn, which is what men love.
To each his or her own, you say. You don't take the same crap from Joe Liberman and you won't take it from women. Wasn't it liberals who helped fight the hardest for women's rights? So, how many years did you set that back and still want the respect of women?
I don't think I quite understand. Liberman shouldn't be the idiot that he is, you Kos should be the idiot that he is?
The ad isn't the principle, the blogger's honest right to publish the ad is
It doesn't matter what women think, they're dumb bitches anyway and should sit down and shut up
Women are silly for feeling s-exploited all over again, dumonlyforsexasses
Why do you expect us to respect Kos, who wants to be respected by everyone in the liberal world, including women, but on this one thing he wants us to turn our heads and look the other way?
Well, I must say that I'm not surprised by the opinions of this blog. Jen, this means that Steve has no respect for you, you have no respect for yourself to be with this man, and like most white people, after a while, he's going to let you know who the real nigger is. In other words, just because you're with him doesn't mean he has one iota more of respect for you than he has for any other ho, and in fact from his writings I would say he doesn't. He keeps you around because at the sound of his zipper going down you fall to your knees, and you stay around because you live in nam, need a man. The two of you are well suited. As for the three of you, Kos, Jen, Steve, what ever little shred of respect I might have had for you, it's gone now. I read Steve from time to time, Kos rarely, but now that you've told me how you feel about women, I have many an excuse not to read you at all, and so I won't, nor will I recommend these blogs. So,you keep your strange principles and disrespect to yourselves.
Peaceout
Jazzy
RainCity, I haven't seen the ad, but I think the points you made about the response of some of Kos's readers to the criticism of the ad is valid. And needed to be said.
A leash-tug now and then, is not necessarily a bad thing, but Dan's right too, in that Kos has done, and is doing, a lot of good for our side, if he screwed up in taking that ad, I say we give him one, raise a liiittle hell about it, and keep going.
Misogynism is misogynism, no matter the source...
Jesus fucking christ what the fuck was that??
Doesn't this feel like one of those horrible fights you had when you were a kid? Folks get furious over some slight and start fighting viciously, without a care as to where the blows fall. After you break apart you notice that people are bleeding from wounds no one really intended to inflict.
There is no way to stop the blood from flowing, or to go back in time to prevent it from happening. All that's left is to walk away, and hope the scars aren't permanent.
After taking a time out for the evening, let me say this:
SRW has good rhetorical arguing skills. Laura's comments were WAY out of line. If she was Kos, she would see males leave her sight in droves. You don't think that the majority of our feelings about sexuality come from our experiences? That's basic psych 101- I don't really think SRW was going out on a limb.
Lindsay had, what I feel, the perfect comment. Kos was out of line. He (semi) apologized. He was wrong, he kinda admitted it like a person with an ego (which we all have to certain degrees) would.
Kos can definitely learn from this- Red Dan's statement earlier in the thread talked much about how we're all human and we aren't perfect, but we can learn from our mistakes.
Amanda- can't we all learn from this? Isn't this the big tent of which you speak of?
It also strikes me as ironic that Jazzy would sign the post 'peace out' after saying Jen was Steve's nigger. Sweet.
well said, zeno, and i don't think the scars from this are lasting. I think it is just incumbent upon the left wing male bloggers to respond with sensitivity to the concerns of those outside of the groups they are in, and for the our liberal sisters to show a little respect that not every male that disagrees with them is a frat boy chauvinist pig.
>>You don't think that the majority of our feelings about sexuality come from our experiences? That's basic psych 101- I don't really think SRW was going out on a limb. >>
There's a huge difference between saying that our experiences shape our sexuality--which is true of absolutely everyone, yes--and saying that women who are bothered by a certain ad obviously had fucked up relationships with their fathers and currently date abusive men.
This is what SWR actually said:
>>I'm not saying that. But only a woman who had a bad relationship with her father and tends to be attracted to abusive men anyway would be outraged by it.>>
See how that's not the same as saying that Amanda's sexuality is shaped by her experiences? See why Amanda--or, heck, any one of the women commenting here--might find that incredibly offensive?
Piny:
True- point taken.
It did all stem from his initial psych 101 comment, but true none the less.
This is what SWR actually said:
>>I'm not saying that. But only a woman who had a bad relationship with her father and tends to be attracted to abusive men anyway would be outraged by it.>>
Yep. It seems pretty damning until you look at the post it was in response to:
SWR, it's clearly about sex for you and not wanting your juvenile jollies called for what they are.
Sex gets real political real quick for men if something they think belongs to them gets denied, ever notice?
Amanda Marcotte | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 1:34 pm | #
So who started with the Psych 101
Sex gets real political real quick for men if something they think belongs to them gets denied, ever notice?
Amanda's obviously on a power trip here. And a rather silly one.
If I were really as much of a porn fiend as she's accusing me of being here, then I'd hardly have it "denied" by not having it run on the Daily Kos.
Fuck. I clear 25 or 30 spam e-mails directing me to porn sites every day. If there were any way Amanda could "deny" me these e-mails, I'd be grateful.
Interesting that you conflate sex with power, SRW. Just saying...
True also. One of the problems with reading 334 comments- it's difficult to keep context.
Also one of the problems with being liberal/having decent rhetorical arumentitive skills. I can see both sides. But my argument lies purely on the libertarianesque/anti-Dobson side: I'll judge what's good or bad for me. The ol' "The TV has an ON/OFF switch" thing. Also, don't call me a sexist because I feel that way. You don't know me.
Interesting that you conflate sex with power, SRW. Just saying...
Laura | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 10:25 pm | #
Interesting how you equate porn with sex. Just saying.
("True also" was meant for SRW's comment. Sex is power to ill minded thinking of both genders, Laura).
Then what's the point of this discussion at all, to label a couple of intials on the web as "sexist".
Why not cut out the name calling and actually try to summarize your position.
You may disagree with my argument that your childhood influences your reaction to an image, but it's not name calling, and I admitted to the same tendency myself.
In fact, when I said "oh here's how I probably react because of my childhood" the response was "oh you just can't get a blowjob loser".
Oh, Jesus fucking fuck on a stick, SWR. You show me where I -- ME, personally, ever said that. And "do your own damn work" is not synonymous with "you need a blowjob."
You know, not too long ago, you got all up in my ass, calling me a racist and telling me I was going to vote for Bloomberg out of fear. Why? Because I'm white. And you got really pissed off when I disagreed with you.
You're conflating a whole bunch of stuff here, and you have no more of an argument than you did when you started.
You can either address the actual points I made in comments addressed to me, or you can fuck off.
In fact, when I said "oh here's how I probably react because of my childhood" the response was "oh you just can't get a blowjob loser".
"Oh, Jesus fucking fuck on a stick, SWR. You show me where I -- ME, personally, ever said that."
Do you think every comment someone makes is automatically meant about you and no one esle? Notice SWR doesn't say YOUR response? Notice that others did accuse him of being blowjob deficient?
Mike
God, Poika and SRW, I'm sorry you had bad childhoods, and I'm really sorry that you've been so damaged that you have to project your pathologies on others. But really, at some point you have to get over that hatred of mom and realize not all women are out to emasculate you. Really. Your balls are no where near as important to us as you think they are.
Do you think every comment someone makes is automatically meant about you and no one esle? Notice SWR doesn't say YOUR response? Notice that others did accuse him of being blowjob deficient?
Don't be stupid. He'd just quoted my comment.
God, Poika and SRW, I'm sorry you had bad childhoods, and I'm really sorry that you've been so damaged that you have to project your pathologies on others.
Actually I have more respect for "Xeno". She's more honest. She thinks it's funny.
Sounds like you had a bad relationship with your mother, by the way, SWR.
Yes I did.
So next you'll admit you can't get anyone to suck your dick, right? Now who's whining?
That's the funniest post on this thread, by far.
Xeno | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 3:02 pm | #
Maybe you should come out and admit how much you enjoy it too.
Interesting that you conflate sex with power, SRW. Just saying...
Laura | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 10:25 pm | #
Interesting how you equate porn with sex. Just saying.
SWR | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 10:27 pm | #
I mean, really. Who wasn't thinking Zoolander when this was posted. Shit, thanks, SRW.
As for the big tent thing, I notice that one and only one sex is expected to compromise for our ideals.
SWR, you do obsess over the BJ crack that was really made just to remind you how annoying it is to get psychoanalyzed. Do you need some advice on how to get women to like you? If so, please come on over to my blog. According to my email box, more than a couple men find my thoughts on sex and dating to be extremely helpful in their personal lives.
As for the power thing, well, maybe I do have a sexual fantasy or two about power. Of course, being a be-cunted American, my sexual fantasies aren't revered, so I'm not free to browbeat people with them. It's like being an atheist--you just don't get the respect that people who profess some religious can expect.
well,i think we all have to compromise our expectations, but women who obsess over power seem to me just as pathetic as men who obsess over silly lesbo fantasy fliks.
Becunted, ha.
If so, please come on over to my blog.
Site Temporarily Unavailable
We apologize for the inconvenience. Please contact the webmaster/ tech support immediately to have them rectify this.
error id: "bad_httpd_conf"
best album of 2005, spoon's gimme fiction.
thank you, lindsey. appreciated your blog entry. this line especially resonated with me.
Male privilege is not a sound business model.
we've all seen families where the male child was doted upon, could do no wrong, was elevated and put on a pedestal. what a shock it must be for him to enter the real world and find women don't automatically defer to him. i'd say that would create some hostility and resentment.
good point about branding. something gillaird should keep in mind. funny how he chose to save his most egregious statement hidden in comments instead of the front page. like he felt safer revealing his true colors there. don't think it wont go unnoticed. next time i vist, i half expect the tag line next to logo to read "welcome to newsblog: where jocks rule and women who don't kiss my ass "can shut the fuck up!"
estraven - liked your women in the back of the bus analogy. that's what it feels like in here. women relegated to less than.
amanda - thanks for punching holes in critics' logic:
but when you back it up with condescending remarks about how the women need to STFU so the men can talk about Important Man Shit, then you're being sexist.
Great, now we have the sexists who are offended at being called sexist--reminds me of talking with racists who don't like being told they're racist. Damn, you'd think being called sexist is worse than being sexist.
great stuff.
jen's voice is conspicuously absent on this thread. i'd like to see her take on this.
thanks, hello, more projection with the 'male child being doted upon', glad you know so much about people you have never met...
ay ay ay... I am a college educated exeuctive woman who earns over six figures.. I just have to say that I think this whole thread is an excuse for Amanda to try to drive traffic to her web site.. I'm just saying
lindsey's male privilege line also begs to compare white male privilege to black male privilge.
swr says that gilliard has comes down hard on black homophobia. i give him credit for that.
but when has steve come down hard on black sexism?
as somebody else noted on this thread. all these issues are interreleated
are the dynamics the same? do some black males need to dominate over women in order to feel better about themselves? as they do when they relegate gays as something inferior? is the train of thought: i may be black but at least i'm not a woman? how else to explain the rampant sexism in black culture? yes this exists in white culture as well, but that's no excuse, and seems to be more celebrated and glorified.
my ego isnt' invested in being right all the time, so please correct me where i'm off base.
Amanda: We all compromise our ideals in politics. That's why the two party system sucks. It's really not a gender issue. Lesser of two evils and all that jazz. Ugh. But if you feel strongly about it, by all means argue until you're little heart's content. We all have our REAL important issues, and if this is the one you feel strongly about, I can't begrudge you that.
Laura: I love my mother and have always had a great relationship with her- and my the same goes with my father. My sister and I didn't get along, but we do OK now. Don't make judgements about people you don't know- it only weakens your arguments. It sucks to say that- it sounds like the, "Really- I'm not gay" schtick, but it's true.
hey nick. i'm not say you. i'm not saying this applies to all men.
swr says that gilliard has comes down hard on black homophobia. i give him credit for that.
but when has steve come down hard on black sexism?
Here.
These people aren't just a danger to pregnant women, but to everyone's reproductive freedom. They want schools to tell kids not to have sex, which is as successful as their don't go crash diets and stop smoking dope programs. In other words, a complete and utter failure. No culture is as obsessed with sex and as ashamed of it. We pour $11 Billion into porn yet debate Howard Stern's language. America is a land of vast sexual hypocrisy.
Here.
What struck me about King was not only his contempt for women, and the DL is mysoginy in action, but his love of this secret world. Instead of having the courage to date and live an ethical life, the men on the down low choose to hide. He liked picking up men in church, as if openly gay men can't do thar. If it was merely self-delusion, it wouldn't bother me, But it kills women and children.
Here.
George Bush has mortgaged the scientific future of this country to Jesus. Yesterday, the FDA refused to allow the sale of morning after pills OTC because "teenage girls might not take them correctly". Instead of limiting the sale to 18 year olds, women still have to see a doctor to prevent pregnancy.
Here.
First, hit the Planned Parenthood box. I've already been paid for it, but you need to sign the petition. Karen Hughes's comments comparing the pro-choice movement to Al Qaeda are deeply unpatriotic and she needs to know Americans will not stand for such vile slander.
Here.
This trip into mysoginy is also a monmument to homophobia. These poor, delusional bastards think that the problem to their romantic issues lies overseas.
Of course, this is really a cover for their own issues with women. As if there is a difference between American women born here and those who live here for a decade.
So...
Where are we at with this?
Aside from the flaming and bashing and personal insults, that is.
Here's where I'm at (and where I have been at for a while):
1. I think the ad was/is sexist. Is that surprising? No. Is it cause for attacking Kos as a sexist? No. If someone does not agree that the ad is sexist, does that make that person a sexist? If that person is a woman, does that make them a "collaborationist" (as some have said in other places)? No.
2. Kos' response to the criticisms he received was over-the-top stupid, and revealed for all to see that Kos himself has some deep-rooted prejudicies surrounding gender issues. Is that a surprise? No. No one is pure, and no one can escape the pervasive rot that commodification of humans - gendered, racial, ethnic, class - that characterises our society/economic system. That's what capitalism DOES, and the infighting that we are seeing is BOTH healthy AND the way that Capitalism survives by sowing the seeds of conflict within opposition camps. Airing the poison, lancing the boil, yelling it, tallking it, screaming it, and pounding the table is both good and bad - it CAN be good if we can get some movement on the issue and bring people to the discussion in order to forge actionable, useful tools that bind us all to common struggle. It CAN be bad if this results in fragmentation and internecine squabbling - for reference, go back in time to 1973 or so and the self-destruction of the New Left.
3. The criticisms he received were, based on my reading, probably pretty over-the-top, too. Kos is, in fact, fighting the good fight. He is an imperfect warrior, to be sure - so are we all. He has some serious "issues" he needs to get a heads up on and deal with - so do we all. Kos running that ad was NOT evidence for an orchestrated purge, was NOT evidence that he is a sexist pig trying to snow the progressives into buying into bargaining away abortion. Kos, and many others have been pretty clear that they do not support bargaining away abortion rights. Criticizing NARAL, criticizing NOW is NOT the same as wanting to bargain away abortion rights. Being personally upset by abortion, being personally opposed in one's personal life to abortion is NOT the same as wanting to bargain away abortion rights. Furthermore, it is a HUGE jump in logic to go from that ad, to Kos' response to criticism, to "Centrist Democrats want to give up on abortion rights" - there certainly are SOME Democrats that are heading in that direction, but there is no evidence that Kos is among them.
4. Personal invective (of which I am guilty as well) that jumps from "You don't see a problem with the ad" to "You don't condemn Kos for his response" to "You're a juvenile, woman-hating, towel-snapping sexist piece of garbage" is really stupid....as is "You think this ad is sexist" to "You went overboard on Kos for no reason" to "You're a humorless, undersexed, frustrated, bra-burning, frigid harridan bitch" - neither are particularly logical, relevant, effective, or useful.
5. The discussion and its fallout is one that needs to happen. The way that it is now happening is bearing some useful fruit. If we can keep this jalopie between the ditches as we barrel down the road at high speed, maybe we can get somewhere on this.
you were specific, swr, in praising gilliard for speaking out against black homophobia. not in homophobia in general. i asked for similair instances where steve spoke out against black sexism.
the examples you cited aren't derived specifically from sexism within black culture. i'd like to see some of those issues discussed.
I thought this was pretty obvious. He connects black homophobia to sexism.
There is a massive stigma towards gays in black America and a healthy racism in the gay community, so being black and gay cannot be easy. The down low is the result of that. But if you're going to live an ethical life, you cannot lie to everyone in it. This disdain of gay culture is decptive. The down low IS a gay culture, one adapted for black men entranced by their need for machismo and secrets.
What struck me about King was not only his contempt for women, and the DL is mysoginy in action, but his love of this secret world. Instead of having the courage to date and live an ethical life, the men on the down low choose to hide. He liked picking up men in church, as if openly gay men can't do thar. If it was merely self-delusion, it wouldn't bother me, But it kills women and children
the examples you cited aren't derived specifically from sexism within black culture. i'd like to see some of those issues discussed.
hello | Email | Homepage | 06.14.05 - 12:58 am | #
Well I'm not black but I'll tell you something about white, working-class sexism and how women contribute to it.
I remember how at around the age of 8 or 9, my life felt as if it was falling to pieces. 15 years later I learned my father was sleeping around on my mother and it started around then.
Well my mother could never quite confront my father about it. She still pretty much denies it, to tell you the truth. But she did confront my brother and me, constantly. My first name is the same as my father's so I took a lot of it. Men were shit. They were oversexed. They couldn't control themselves.
Was my mother a victim? Yes. She was. But who did she attack? And who are Amanda and Laura attacking? They're attacking someone they perceive to be unattractive, sexually frustrated, without much status. Whether or not that's true, I won't really get into. But that's who they think they're attacking.
Anyway, this went on for a couple of years and my mother started drinking. My father probably liked it since it kept her from complaining. At the same time, my brother started hanging out the "bad kids" and they started telling him about porn, smoking, etc.
Well usually he was pretty circumspect about it but one night he got careless and he left a copy of Playboy in his room. He was 13 and I was 11. Something about it must have set my mother off because she boiled a pot of water, brought my brother into the kitchen, made him put his hand over the sink and poured the boiling water all over his hand.
My brother didn't do a fucking thing because he felt sorry for her. He still defends her.
Enjoy that. Have a good laugh. Maybe if I read Amanda's blog I'll learn how to get laid more often, right?
Sounds like you had a bad relationship with your mother, by the way, SWR.
Yes I did.
So next you'll admit you can't get anyone to suck your dick, right? Now who's whining?
That's the funniest post on this thread, by far.
Xeno | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 3:02 pm | #
Maybe you should come out and admit how much you enjoy it too.
SWR | Email | Homepage | 06.13.05 - 10:48 pm | #
why do I never hear the PC girls ever decry the women who actually took the money to do the add.
I personally hate strip clubs.
Because the degrade women, but they also degrade men. Its the buying and selling of that which should be freely given. That shit offends me.
That said, if women would quit playing that role, quit taking the money, quit basing their whole self worth on how many guys they think want to fuck them, then the whole landscape would change.
I see a lot of defensive posturing over the implied thought that girls get over by fucking or playing on that desire to get over. And that does suck, but it also true in a lot of instances. Thats not a stereotype, just an observation.
This explotation is not slavery. It happens with the consent of the exploited. Do you think those 12 year old girls dressing up as sluts happens because I have a penis?
Maybe you should have a conversation with Brittany or Christina.
Busting on guys because they are horndogs by nature is really kind of too easy.
Try having a conversation with the women who because of greed, insecurity or vanity, allows this explotation.
Of course they will tell you to fuck off faster than Kos ever did. Because to them, it feels really powerfull to lead a guy around by his gonads.
Flame me if you wan't, but I am having this discussion in an even mannered and non-shrill way with my fellow horndogs. And making headway I might add.
Are you having the same conversation with Ms."see how big my boobs are?"
If not, why not?
I know, if men didn't go to strip clubs yada yada.
Thats what I meant about having the conversations with my fellow horndogs.
I beleive in a free America where someone can go to a strip club if they wan't.
I also believe in an America where there are no more strip clubs because whe have risen above that, and nobody wants to.
...the man's received death threats, and he decides to get snappy about this issue? He could have ignored it, he could have, oh, ENGAGED THE CRITICISMS DIRECTLY, but instead he just waved them off as being feminists with their panties in a bunch over nothing, because women's issues aren't Important Shit.
Maybe he's a bit more sensitive to being called an anti-progressive pig who is shilling for the Christofascist wing of the Democratic Party and running a cabal of Putschists trying to snow the Lefty Blogosphere than he is worries about death threats from Chickenhawks, Warbloggers, and Christofascists?
Getting called out by one's friends and allies is ALWAYS harder than getting attacked by one's enemies.
I dunno, snarky....those arguments are a bit shallow, IMO.
Commodification is pervasive.
Fighting commodification - of women, of blacks, of labor, of soldiers, of athletes - requires understanding root causes.
Understanding root causes requires checking our own responses and being honest.
It also requires listening.
Kos probably got some seriously uncalled for ripping...but he also engaged in some pretty seriously uncalled for dismissal.
It is a two-way street, and we cannot excuse our imperfections by pointing out the greater imperfections of others...
Of course. We're shrill btches becuase we're pissed off about a sexist culture we created for ourselves in the first place. It all makes so much more fucking sense now.
cclough,
Are you responding to me, or to a different comment?
Because if you are responding to me, please tell me why such a response?
Different comment, sorry. SnarkyShark primarily.
Yeah, those were not particularly helpful comments.
But remember (and this is very hard to remember for me too) that on topics of your own (or my own) particular interest, study, and introspection, there are many others who do not necessarily share that interest or devotion or discipline.
Often those others are, in fact, allies.
Often those others' particular areas of introspection, devotion, and study are complete non-starters for us.
So, when someone starts talking off the cuff about global warming, peak oil, resource depletion, earthquakes, and other such things (I am a structural geologist by profession) and getting it all wrong, mangling that shit beyond belief, and coming to crazy ass conclusions that make no logical, scientific, or progressive sense in any way shape or form...
My first impulse is "Listen, you anti-intellectual dumb-as a rock conglomeration of ignorant protein, this shit is KNOWN, the resources are EASILY available, and I am TIRED of explaining just how wrong these moronic, irrational rants are..." - unfortunately, I all to often give in to my first impulses.
But in reality, misinformation, ignorance, and the rest are all too pervasive, and teaching is too important for that to work.
Patience.
Yes, sexism, dismissive brush-offs from powerful men and their coterie of lapdog bandwagoner admirers elicit the same responses from many who are feminists, who study this shit, and who SEE the connections between Hierarchy, Patriarchy, Racism, War, Capitalism, and Environmental Degradation.
But we can't spend all our time lashing out, and we MUST realize that even our allies, even ourselves, are not perfect and never will be.
I get so fucking angry when people dismiss the environment, and say that it is not the crucial issue...well, sez me, who fucking CARES about misogyny, abortion rights, labor rights, anti-racism, and etc if we're ALL FUCKING DEAD because we poisoned our planet, flooded the coasts, melted the ice-caps and destroyed the Earth's cloaking mechanisms...
But that doesn't seem to work...I know it doesn't work, because I keep doing it...and it keeps not working...
See where I am going?
sorry you had to go through that, swr.
swr, i don't disagree with you about how some women foster hatred against their own sex. you know, bad mothering doesn't affect only males. i've seen daughters with bad modeling end up self-hating. which manifesting in bulimia, anerexia, cutting, etc.
even though i've never seen it put this way, women who hate women is also sexism.
my school once held a poll asking students if they would ever vote for a woman president. some (not all!) of the male responses, i expected. there were also comments from males who were supportive. what blew me away was that the majority of negative responses came from women themselves citing all the stereotypes you expect to hear, such as women being hormone addled, unreliable, moody, passive, etc. thereby not fit to be president. they didn't absorb this view of women from culture alone.
society hasn't advanced much since then. i don't see how hillary has a chance in hell.
hello,
I hope Hillary doesn't have a chance in hell.
She's as anti-progressive as they get.
And I hope that, without offending you, I can say that if you think that feminism = electing women to powerful office, that the names Margaret Thatcher, Condoleezza Rice, Madelein Albright, Phyllis Schlafly, and a host of other reactionary morons with vaginas will disabuse you of that false equivalence.
If I misinterpreted your comments re: hillary, please excuse me in advance.
Thanks for sharing that SWR. At least you are honest about what your prejudices/biases are and where you are coming from. What bugs me so much about the tone of Amanda (and others) is that the way she appears to think about men is really not much different than the way she perceives all of the guys on here think about women. By that I mean her consistent references to people on here not getting laid enough, being obsessed with porn (by implication, chronic masturbators who aren't attractive enough to get real girls) and her 'hot' boyfriend show that she perceives men's attractiveness as being fairly important to the worthiness of them as people and the worthiness of their opinions. But the liberal men on this forum (who I imagine didn't even like the stupid fucking commercial) are the ones who objectify people. Um, ok. Sure. And the thing about going to her blog to learn how to get laid or something is hilarious. What world does she live in? Go out to the bars,clubs, coffeeshops, whatever in any normal city and tell me the guys who are getting laid coincide with the guys who are most sensitive to womens issues or whatever and I'll say it shows just how out of touch with reality you are.
Nick, I was trying to provoke men into thinking about what it feels like to by psychoanalyzed and told that your opinions are based on your inadequecies as a sex object. And yeah, you don't like it, but the only response is, "We give that shit out, but we sure as hell don't think we have to take it." Well, I don't cotton to this sort of pseudo-bitch-slap. If your right to have tired, juvenile sexual fantasies everywhere you turn should be treated with reverence to the point that you have to be extremely disrespectful to women who complain in order to shut down conversation, then at least be equal about it and let me treat you like a bitch right back.
If your right to have tired, juvenile sexual fantasies everywhere you turn should be treated with reverence to the point that you have to be extremely disrespectful to women who complain
But Amanda?
First, disclaimer - I thought the ad, the comments, and the response to criticism were all way out of line...
Second, rejoinder - I think your characterization of all who disagree about the above opinions as people who want license to engage in juvenile sexual fantasies is pretty lame.
Third, it was not all women who were complaining about the ad (Steve's quite wrong in his characterisation of that), and it was not all men who were defending both that ad and rejecting the criticism of it.
Fourth, disagreement on subjective matters that leads to accusations of cabals, conspiracies, anti-progressiveness, and back-stabbing purges is bound to incite pretty nasty responses from people who have spent a good part of their life over the last few years engaged in trying as hard as they possibly can to change the direction this sorry ass nation is taking.
Do those things justify Kos' response? No.
But really, the broad brush just isn't very productive.
The ad is not soft core erotica (pornography is illegal, but most erotica, even explicit erotica is not pornographic in the strictly legal sense).
Soft core: Naked people. Simulated sex.
Possibly some pubic hair, definitely breasts. No erect penises.
Hard core: Erect penises, some sort of applied kinemetics (place tab a in slot b, masturbation, etc.)
BTW, a point that some of the folks have missed: One of the weapons that is used against liberals is the stereotype of liberals as humorless PC types.
You know the joke:
Q: How many radical feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: That's NOT funny!
It's not that people were/are offended, but that they were/are extremely sanctimonious and patronizing in their offensensitivity.
This shit turns 80+% of the American public anything else we want to say, in exactly the same way that the characterization of Jerry Fallwell's slightly misreported statements regarding Teletubbies (he said that gays had co-opted them, not that they were gay) hurt him.
When you make this a big issue with much hand wringing and angst, you cost the rest of us a lot of credibility.
Finally, a good light bulb joke:
Q: How many people does it take to screw in a proletarian light bulb?
A: None. A proletarian light bulb contains the seeds of its own revolution.
Well, I had hardly treated you like a bitch, but you seem to have some odd ability to distinguish between different men, at least on this comment board.
You seem to make sweeping generalizations about men the way that sexist men do about women. For example, they aren't my 'fantasies' by any means, and probably not those of any other people on the but you seem to think that every man is into that kind of thing.
The issue is still Kos' "women's studies" remark, and his lame-ass non-apology. And his apologists.
For millennia, women have been regarded as inferior, as second-class. They have been property of first their fathers, and then their husbands.
Women still make less money than men.
Women's access to medical care is less than that of men, and there are ongoing efforts to roll back the gains that have been made.
Efforts are being made to keep women out of combat, while combat experience is required for advancement in a military career.
The Equal Rights Amendment still is not part of the U.S. Constitution.
All this (and much, much more) is the province of "women's studies," and no one would have paid any attention to these inequalites, nor tried to redress them, without "women's studies."
Mocking proponents of women's studies is an insult to the integrity and worth of women. Insinuating that women who resent being insulted in this way as oversexed, under-laid, unshaven, shrill, humorless harridens has been SOP of the privileged for centuries, and prima facie evidence that Kos, Steve, and many others still don't value women as equals. "STFU and go back to stuffing envelops, and keeping your man satisfied."
The issue is not that women choose to fight back suing your own tactics--the issue iw when will you wake the fuck up?
The issue is still Kos' "women's studies" remark, and his lame-ass non-apology. And his apologists.
...
/b | Email | Homepage | 06.14.05 - 11:24 am | #
Well, you are right on that.
Instead of saying woman's studies set, he could have been more speciric, i.e.:
Members of the humor impaired sexphobic prude brigade on the left.
Sound better?
Sound better?
Matthew Saroff | Email | Homepage | 06.14.05 - 11:43
No.
""when men do this" or "when men do that", the implication comes across very strongly that men decide what the proper reaction is and women are to follow."
No, Amanda, that's what you're inferring. When Steve says "men have this reaction" he means he and the men he knows have this reaction. Really, doctrinaire feminism is your biggest failing, sister.
It's not that people were/are offended, but that they were/are extremely sanctimonious and patronizing in their offensensitivity.
You know, I keep hearing this argument, that the people who objected were sanctimonious or just plain mean to Kos, but I haven't seen any links to show it.
And linking to anything written *after* Kos' response doesn't count.
Oh jesus fucking christ. Is there any wonder people think liberals are nitwits?
Do you know how mature, responsible, SANE people would handle this?
Offended people: "Hey, Kos -- that ad is a bit offensive. Kinda sexist, and I don't like it. Why are you running it?"
Kos: "I don't screen ads for much. Not a big fan of censorship. You wouldn't believe the idiotic mail I've gotten on this fucking ad, though. Some people have no sense of damn proportion. You'd think I was eyeraping people".
Offended people: "I still don't like it, but it's your site and your ads. I suppose I'll just have to decide whether I hate it enough to leave."
Kos: "Yep. Sorry about that. I don't really want to censor ads, even ones in poor taste. Sets a bad precedent. I hope you stay."
See? That's how SANE people handle it. Of course, what really happened was Kos got snippy and said something rather offensive, which pissed people off. Why did he say something offensive? I would imagine because he was pissed off that he was getting called a misogynstic bastard for running a damn add for a stupid reality TV show. Frankly, having a bunch of lefties right my ass -- especially if I considered myself pretty damn progressive -- over a damn Gilligan's island ad as if I was personally raping and subjugating women -- would piss me off.
And I probably would only offer a grudging apology, because it's not like the flaming retards who sent me those idiotic emails ever apologized for being dumbasses. (And yes, I'd know the people I insulted with my response weren't the people that pissed me off, which is why I'd apologize).
But you know where we are now? We have a bunch of flaming retards who are pissed that Kos got pissed. Tell you what -- I happily admit that Kos's language was over the top and offensive. Now you admit that the REASON he was over the top and offensive was because he got a bunch of hate mail from a group of humorless asshats who accused him of everything from mental rape to personally subjugating half the world population all for running a damn ad.
Let's be fucking GOOD little liberals here and admit everyone had reasons for what they did, and stop being BAD little liberals who have no sense of humor or proportion.
Now you admit that the REASON he was over the top and offensive was because he got a bunch of hate mail from a group of humorless asshats who accused him of everything from mental rape to personally subjugating half the world population all for running a damn ad.
Yes--the feminazis made him do it.
Yes--the feminazis made him do it.
Ah, so you're going to be a bad little liberal then? A self-righteous, holier-than-thou judgemental type?
What? Is it so hard to admit that ANY group of people, no matter how well meaning, has a bunch of over the top idiots who make everyone look bad?
It's true for every group and organization on the planet, no matter how small. It's certainly true of the feminist movement as well.
And you know what? Those over-the-top idjits who overreact to ANYTHING -- often helping (as they have in this case) to cloud and obscure real issues behind their fire-and-brimstone denounciations -- are the ones you hear first and loudest.
They didn't MAKE Kos do anything. I don't doubt they were the reason he was snappish and insulting in his post. As for his grudging apology -- frankly, given the self-righteousness he faced and the fact that few seemed to want to give him the benefit of the doubt (the old "He was pissed and spoke poorly) and instead jumped to the worst possible view of his words, you're lucky you got that.
Neither side really covered themselves with glory here.
Most people have a bit of pride, and to have a bunch of people you thought were your friends jump to the "you're a howling bigot" conclusion instead of the "He was angry and spoke poorly, something that happens to all of us" is pretty damn hurtful.
I give Kos credit for even a grudging apology. He misspoke, certainly. But I'd probably not bother apologizing to a bunch of assholes who thought so poorly of me they'd not give me the benefit of the doubt. Friends like that I don't need.
There is a power dynamic here that is self destructive, the "loony left" power dynamic.
They were a big thing in Labo(u)r before Blair came into power, and they would make a big deal over all this sort of minutae.
The dynamic is that on a personal level they lose when Labo(u)r takes power again, because they become irrelevant.
It's the subconscious subtext of their behavior.
Basically, by confirming the worst stereotypes of Labo(u)r, they got coverage and support.
That's why the left needs to call bullshit on this sort of grandstanding.
Now you admit that the REASON he was over the top and offensive was because he got a bunch of hate mail from a group of humorless asshats who accused him of everything from mental rape to personally subjugating half the world population all for running a damn ad.
Do you have links to those emails to back this up?
Yes--the feminazis made him do it.
Ah, so you're going to be a bad little liberal then? A self-righteous, holier-than-thou judgemental type?
No. I'm mocking you.
Do you have links to those emails to back this up?
Why do I need them? You seem to be operating under the assumption that the default assumption is that Kos has successfully hidden a wide streak of misogny for years.
I'm not. You can feel free to jump immediately to the worst possible explanation for anything but don't be surprised if it doesn't win you a lot of friends. I tend to look for simpler and more rational explanations myself.
No. I'm mocking you.
Oh god, the horror! I'm being mocked by a humorless pissant! However shall I live with the shame?
Okay. Kos has set himself up as a leader online and his response to Shakespeare's Sister and the rest of us was not good leadership. He paraphrased bush's "Who cares what you think?" Good going, Kos. If you're going to take the money and say you're the example to follow, don't be such an asshole.
And that goes for you, too, Steve, Duncan, Matt, Kevin, and the rest of the blog A-listers. (By the way, those of you on blogger, if you're making so much money, why not get real web hosting? It's good for the economy.)
And Kos could have avoided all of this for all of us if, instead of beating his big manly blogger chest, he'd just privately written back to S, "Oh.", that's all, just "Oh." or "Oh, thanks for telling me how you feel." it is the magic conflict diffuser, I use it whenever I feel like it, which is usually. Like I said, bad leadership, Kos, no biscut.
Indeed. Kos, [i]because[/i] he owns a popular website, should spend all his free time privately responding to each and every criticism he recieves -- even the bloody fucking stupid ones by people offended by the "soft-core porn" of a reality-show TV ad.
That's what he should do. Email each and every single person who yelled about it. Personally. Individually. Then everyone who wrote a diary on it. Then everyone who commented on those diaries. Then everyone who blogged on it. And everyone who commented on those blogs.
Or, maybe, he can just write off an irritable fucking letter about his ad policy and make it clear he's not terribly thrilled with getting ranted at over a damn stupid ad.
Don't you have enough actual IMPORTANT things to be offended by? How about that girl in pakistan who -- after being sentenced to gang rape -- is now being prevented from leaving the country? Isn't that a trifle more worthy of all this [i]fucking attention[/i] then whether or not Kos hurt your feelings?
Red, I didn't say all of Kos's defenders were indulging their lame fantasies. But I will say that more than a few here were so stuck on the issue of me wanting to take the precious ad away--which I didn't want to do--that I couldn't even deal with it. They want to talk about women's bodies, they want their sexual proclivities to be above reproach, and they want those their fantasies paraded around in public. Good for them. Seriously. But if that's the society we're gonna have, then it should be representative--women should be allowed to brag, objectify men, parade our fantasies around and not get shit for it. But we can't.....because it makes men uncomfortable.
Morat, gender inequity is why girls in Pakistan get raped and treated like chattel. Part and parcel of the whole. We're never going to stop rape until we address why it is that male dominance is tolerated worldwide.
at least kos offered an apology. gilliard needs to do the same.
Of course. We're shrill btches becuase we're pissed off about a sexist culture we created for ourselves in the first place. It all makes so much more fucking sense now.
It's obvious you are only going too see shit the way you want to see it.
I didn't say what you are implying, and I realize women didn't create the culture we live in. But nethier did I.
All I am trying to do is deal with and try to improve the situation.
As far as I can see, all you want to do scream about how offended you are about everything, how wrong we are for dare giving in to our biological urges on occassion.
You areshrill, you do appear to hate men, and you are doing no good for anybody in anyway. I see now this is about you, and your little bent feelings.
You don't like the stereotype....then quit being the living embodiment of it.
Meanwhile I will fight for equality in the way I think is the most effective....and you can keep on giving Rush fodder for his Dittoheads.
Get over yourself.
>>As far as I can see, all you want to do scream about how offended you are about everything, how wrong we are for dare giving in to our biological urges on occassion.>>
...So if Amanda gave into her primal hysterical rage, and brained the next chauvinist she encountered, that would be okay, too? Maybe as long as she didn't make a regular practice of it?
You blamed women who are forced to use their bodies to survive--because we all know that strippers, porn "actors," and prostitutes, like homeless people, have chosen the situation they find themselves in--for the fact that some men treat women as objects to be used.
While you didn't say that they create the culture they are forced to live in, you did argue that they bear at responsibility for the conditions of their survival within it. And you wrote as though their choices to survive are at least as free and unburdened as men's choices to rent women for sex.
If you want Amanda not to treat you like a cartoon of a sexist asshole, maybe you could stop repeating such cartoonish arguments.
I appear to hate men? Where in this comment thread have I said anything that makes it appear I hate men? Quote me.
You think I am being the living embodiment of a stereotype? Funny, I don't recall having met you.
I've watched the evolution of the argument on this thread, from some people trying to explain why they were offended. Answers received have ranged from the honest response, whether agree or disagree, to the shit you were spewing. Really, if women didn't dance naked, the whole culture would change? Breathtaking.
I spouted off in anger at this whole fucked up situation. It does not seem to be possible to actually discuss the differing perspectives on what happened on the blogs this past month.
i like how you guys worry more about what rush might say -- than give consideration to your fellow liberals, who happen to be women.
who gives a shit what rush has to say? we are not going to modify our principles just to suit rush. get real.
add snarkyshark to the "shut up and sit down" brigade.
Honestly, I think if you want people to change, you have to be nice to them and calmly explain the error of their ways, not snarkly bait them then ambush them.
That will solve nothing because it automatically turns it into a personal fight.
This goes for both sides.
Note: I really debated about whether to post this
Really, if women didn't dance naked, the whole culture would change? Breathtaking.
If women didn't act like objects, then they wouldnt be treated as objects. Prove to me how this is incorrect.
And I am not generalizing...I am talking about specific women who do specific things that specifically hurt women generally.
My question remains...what have you specifically done to discourage this behavior from youre side of the fence.
I suspect nothing, because its easir to blame everybody else.
If I see a man objectifying a women, I say something about it. I have taken a lot of shit for this.
Have you ever told a woman....why don't you quit acting like an object?
If not, why not?
I don't advocate that you sit down and shut up.....I think you should do what Kos suggest.
Start a blog called...oh I dont know...how about the I hate piefights blog.
If this single issue is so freakin important to you that you can lose sight of the bigger fights like oh I dont know...maybe saving this country from becoming a theocrocay, then you are not an asset and we would be better if you would take a vacation to marginalization world.
And when I say single issue, I am not talking about womens issues...I'm talking about your overwhelming need to be pandered to.
As far as Rush goes....you better understand you're enemy, so you can understand how to fight him.
To see the result of living in a fantasy world such as yours.....see Iraq.
The clownshow that is the Bush admin still doesnt have a clue who we are fighting and why.
Raincitygirl,
Respect is a two-way street. It isn't just validating your concerns and making you feel better. Before you start namecalling because you're pissed about a silly ad, think about what you're really doing.
Steve, if you go back and reread my first post, you'll notice that I stated way up front that I did not have a problem with the flipping ad. I saw it on DKos, I saw it on Pandagon, I saw it on Atrios, and I didn't give a damn. I didn't even know anybody had been offended until I saw Kos's response post on the dKos main page (hey, dKos is a big site; I missed the original pie fight post). Who am I calling names? Where in either of my posts am I calling people names? And why, since I stated for the record when I first joined this thread that I was not offended by the ad, are you saying that I need to think about what I'm really doing, getting pissed over a silly ad? Because I stated in my post very clearly that I did not find the ad offensive. I just don't see how your first paragraph is in any way a logical response to either of my posts.
Betrayed? Are you an adult? Are you serious? It's a blog. You're an adult, you don't like something someone says, call them on it and let it go. Don't whine because Kos said something you didn't agree with.
I called, and I did let it go. I decided not to go back to dKos, and I didn't do any "whining" there. My "whining" on your blog was because you posted an entry about the situation which I felt didn't take into account all the contributing factors. I was calling you on what I felt was a limited perspective in your entry, not trying to whine. Your original entry made it sound like it was all about the ad, when for me and for many other women (and some men) who got pissed off about the situation, it wasn't the ad, it was the demeaning response by Kos, and the nasty, sexist, personal attacks by some Kossacks who seemed to perceive Kos's post as meaning it was open season on any woman who wouldn't agree to sit down, shut up, and get told by the men what she should care about politically. I didn't, and still don't give a damn about the stupid ad. One of the biggest participants in this thread has been Amanda, and I'd seen that same ad on Pandagon several times. If Amanda cares about the vitriolic response to the initial complaints when she ran the ad on her own site, then why is it so hard for you to believe that I too might care more about the response than the ad?
My God, some people get their backs up over stupid shit. I bet your boyfriend could bullshit you blind before you got this angry.
I'm actually not that angry. Pissed-off and disappointed, yup. I don't see what my boyfriend or girlfriend has to do with a political issue, though.
Oh, that's my "friend". And you'd accept it until the light went on in your head.
It's late, which may be why I'm not getting it, but you're going to have to clarify what you mean here. I've read over these two sentences repeatedly, and I've reread the rest of your reply to me in hopes of figuring out from the context what the two sentences above mean, but so far, no luck. Care to clarify? I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions and assume you mean something you don't when the meaning is ambiguous.
So come on. It was an ad. You didn't get the response you wanted to hear.
See above re: not offended by the ad. I stated that in my first post pretty clearly; I'm not sure why you're still labouring under the misapprehension that I found it offensive and flew into a snit. I've now set the record straight, and you can go back to the beginning of this thread to verify what I actually did say in my two previous posts.
So what? Are you really that fragile that you have to be protected from contrary opinion?
Nope. Just asking to be treated with a little common decency and respect by the people who have contrary opinions.
Hello,
Before you form an opinion, please ask.
Kos doesn't have time to solicit ads. They come to him. TBS picked a series of sites to run that ad on, including Atrios I think.
See above, and it wasn't just Atrios, it was also Pandagon. For me it was never about the ad. Did you actually read my post before you responded to me?
Ok, who here works 80 hours a week for themselves?
I work for an employer, but I don't exactly have a forty hour workweek. I have nothing but respect for people who run their own small businesses.
What you had is a lot of people talking about an issue they didn't understand. Oh, he's a sexist, oh he was nasty.
I understood it just fine, actually. My understanding simply differed from yours.
Grow up.
You are free to work 80 hours a week and start your own blog and deal with issues in your own way.
I may not work quite 80 hour weeks, but I work hard, and I use some of the money I make to donate to progressive political organizations. Not everyone can write a blog. Some of us participate offline by donating money and by volunteering, and online by by reading, by occasionally commenting, and by sending money when and where we can. Now, I'm not as important as a blogger, in that my contribution could be replaced by another person quite easily, but I think I have the right to have an opinion. I also think I expressed it in your comment thread in a non-childish, reasonable, facts-based way. So I don't care for being told to grow up.
Now, I disagreed with the NARAL bashing on Kos and said so. A lot of the same people had no problem jumping on NARAL for making their own political choices, choices I defend.
Props to you. Doesn't get you a free pass on everything, though.
But here's the deal: we do a LOT of stuff you don't see and to get lectured on an ad would piss me off to no end. It's easy to sit behind a desk, with a steady paycheck and talk about being offended and handling things badly. Or not respecting people.
And once again your response to me, even though it's directed to me by name, actually has little to do with my previous two posts. I wasn't offended by the ad, for the fourteenth time.
After all, you can afford to be offended.
None of these women had the decency to ask how the ad got there or who to complain to. Nope. It was validate my feelings time. Make me feel better like it was a fucking therapy session.
Some women behaved inappropriately, and therefore it was okay for Kos to slam all feminists? Not in my book. Also, saying issues of concern to feminists are unimportant side issues, unlike real political issues which men prioritize, is also not okay in my book. It wasn't so much that Kos was being an asshole to a specific bunch of female posters, it was his diatribe against feminists in general, and his refusal to accept that there could be a problem with the ad. As I've said, I personally didn't have a problem with the ad. But I can see how a reasonable woman could have a problem with it.
Oh men are sexist.
No shit. Deal with it and stop acting like you're owed something because mommy and daddy kissed your ass and your professors, when not trying to fuck you, catered to your nonsense.
Wow. That was, well, nasty. You didn't much like me using that word before, but when the shoe fits.... By the way, you're doing the exact same thing Kos did that pissed me off in the first place: making sweeping assumptions about a whole set of people based on virtually no information and drawing on sexist stereotypes. The paragraph above is the same thing Kos did.
And for your information, you don't know shit about me. I disagree with you, I'm female, I cop to being a feminist. That's all you knew before you spouted off your theory about how I must feel entitled and how my arguments are illegitimate (even though you never actually addressed the arguments I did make in my first two posts).
My mom was too busy living paycheque to paycheque raising three kids on her own to kiss anybody's ass. And my dad was the reason she left and took her kids with her. Yeah, I sure got my ass kissed by the alcoholic, physically abusive neo-Nazi.
Funny thing is, a major reason I'm feminist, anti-racist, and politically liberal is that spending a good chunk of my childhood in the same house with my dad to me taught me that sexism, racism, and reactionary politics are intricately linked. And before anybody like SWR jumps on my childhood experiences to declare me yet another feminist who hates men and is hopelessly biased (therefore dismissable) because of her shitty childhood, I'd like to point out that I have good relationships with quite a few men.
As for my professors, none of them tried to fuck me, but maybe I was too busy to notice what with working two jobs while going to university and also dealing with a chronic illness. But I really love the implication, based on no evidence, that a woman who disagrees with you must have used her body to get good grades, and therefore didn't earn her accomplishments. That's very classy, Steve.
How would you feel, if someone who disagreed with Jen politically countered her arguments by saying she must have gotten through law school because of her professors wanting to fuck her, instead of on her own merit? Or someone who disagreed with your sister saying that to her? But I guess it's different when it's a woman you know and love, instead of some nameless feminist. How about you pay me the same respect you'd want a man who disagreed with Jen to pay her, and engage me on the level of the facts, instead of stooping to sexual name-calling, and implying that I any of my accomplishments were earned with my tits and ass and not with my brains?
Morat, gender inequity is why girls in Pakistan get raped and treated like chattel. Part and parcel of the whole. We're never going to stop rape until we address why it is that male dominance is tolerated worldwide.
And the fact that we're addressing it by arguing over a fucking Gilligan's Island ad and deciding Kos is a howling bigot because he got pissed people bitching about an ad is undoubtly a source of much happiness for that poor girl.
Let me place it in purely simple terms: Going after Kos this hard for something this stupid doesn't help your cause. It hurts it. Given all the concrete and real examples of gender inequality in America alone you can bring up, spending this much time and energy on a goddamn pie ad -- no matter what issue it's magically morphed into -- makes it look like the situation is so well adjusted that we're reduced to nitpicking.
Other than the fact that Kos gets rude when he's pissed, all we've established here is that too many people confuse ivory tower idealism with actual problems.
In a world where rape, sex slavery, and the whole "women are property" idea is alive and well, I find it fucking ludicrous that you're wasting time on this.
If women didn't act like objects, then they wouldnt be treated as objects. Prove to me how this is incorrect.
translation: the woman wore a short skirt. she was just asking to be raped.
well morat, give us a list of your preapproved issues and we will click our heels, snap to and fall in line.
oh, and before we get upset about anything on our own, we'll first send you a memo to to get your approval, and to see if it's appropriate to get outraged about. you decide for us what is worthy.
despite the insistence, this thing isn't about the ad, pie or lesbianic fantasies. it's about the attitudes underlying it. the attitudes in fierce defense of it to the point that liberals(?) stoop to telling women
to shut the fuck up about it.
the dismissive rhetoric coming out of liberal males is the same kind of rhetoric i'd expect to come out of rush. what's the difference then between the two? it's attitudes like these that lead to the kind of abuses you talk about.
you keep being told this, but you keep refusing to listen.
oh well.
for the record, fwiw, i never objected to the ad, never called for it to be pulled.
Geez. I missed the whole hoo-ha.
Thank God.
I watched the ad a zillion times on TV, and at best I got annoyed at the silliness of it. And the fact that it seemed to be on every two minutes.
Guess what. I'm a liberal woman.
You aren't going to stop rape, sexual slavery, yadda yadda by having a meltdown over trivial examples of women making a pretty good buck doing what they believe will appeal to a certain segment of men. Specifically, 15 year-old men.
I guess it brings up the old porn fight, doesn't it? Objectifies women, exploits women ... I for one would like to live in a culture that is healthy enough for women to run around buck ass naked and not get attacked. For me the problem isn't the nakedness--it's the crazy attacker!
Here's a real progressive thought for you: there is something fundamentally wrong with a predatory person (usually men in the stories you hear of, but undoubtedly there are women out there too). He will be fundamentally flawed even if every woman on the street wears a bhurka--I mean, isn't the shield over the eyes there so that a woman can't tantalize a man into attacking her?
All this stuff about objectifying women actually does the cause a dis-service. Why? Because the problem is not with the woman! It never has been!! Yes, there is a societal problem. But it is in the same vein as stealing a car or a Raiders jacket out of lust to have something that belongs to someone else.
Until we deal with the fundamental root of the problem--that there are people among us who have a greater endowment of animal reactions than intellectual reactions--it won't matter what the women wear or whether they act provocatively.
Geesh. You know they say getting liberals to agree is like herding cats. So fine, a bunch of liberal women won't participate in a liberal site anymore because of a fight over boob pie. Let's see. How does this make the world a better place?? How does this serve humankind?
C'mon you guys. Good people disagree about things. They have sharp words sometimes. From what I've read above, there isn't a single person in this debate qualified to throw the first stone. I've always felt that liberals have a mature outlook on society, and that progressives dream of a better world. If we want our mature agenda to be realized (which I hope includes solving societal beast problems), let's do the grownup thing and apologize.
I agree with Ellen, and I am sorry her voice of sanity wasn't heard earlier.
personally, i don't care what you wack off to. softcore, hardcore, gay, straight, whatever. that goes for men or women. really, it's none of my business. you know where to find it. what other people objected to was the venue. i wasn't the one making it but i think this is a fair critique.
nobody was out to take your porn away. you know where to find it. do you really need to go to dailykos to gratify your sexual fantasies?
apparently, kos and his clique thinks so.
that's fine. now we know where kos' priorities are. that dumb ad was more important to kos than half the people on his blog. (don't kid yourself, it was more than 20 women offended, if not by the ad than by kos' dismissive attitude.) he didn't care he was alienating half of his comrades in arms who have gone to bat for him in the past. the money was important to him.
see ellen, it wasn't about boobs, so much as it was it about lack of respect and women being relegated as being less important than some dumb ad. kos shouldn't be suprised that people aren't going to patronize someplace where they are treated with contempt.
kos had never run salacious or cheesey ads before. why now? he shouldn't be suprised that people were thrown off by it. and he has refused to run an ad before. on principle. so people arguing that would set a bad precedent business wise, that argument doesn't hold.
check out kos' stated policy for running ads on his site.
>>From Brian Lamb's April 10, 2005, Q&A interview with Moulitsas:
LAMB: And so, what kind of an advertiser – give us some examples of what’s on there?
MOULITSAS: Most of the advertisers right now, since it’s not a political year, are issue groups, people who are fighting the Bush agenda, people who are selling, say, partisan tee-shirts and bumper stickers, and that sort of thing.
So, it’s a very partisan group of advertiser, people who are trying to reach partisan readers.
So, one of the things that a blog really does, and I think is very effective in, is that it allows – what you get in a blog, essentially, is you get these affinity groups, right. You have people who are really interested in one particular topic, be it politics. And if you’re talking about politics, divided into libertarians and conservatives and liberals.
You can have sports blogs. You can have technology blogs.
And what it does is, these people are really passionate about that subject, and advertisers really have an extremely targeted group of people to reach. So there’s where the value I think comes.
It’s not Yahoo! news or Google news, where it could be absolutely just anybody coming in to do that kind of advertising. And you hope that you get some targeted people, people who line up with what you’re advertising.
With blogs you know exactly what the audience is into. And if you have a product that really sells to that audience – in my case, political campaign or partisan tee-shirts, anti-Bush DVDs – if you have that kind of product, it’ll do really well.
And it’s the same for, say, the conservative sites, but on the flip side, right. I mean, if you have an anti-Hillary Clinton video, you know that some of the conservative blogs are going to attract the kind of audience that will do really well for your product.
Posted by: JDC | June 14, 2005 10:19 PM
So fine, a bunch of liberal women won't participate in a liberal site anymore because of a fight over boob pie. Let's see. How does this make the world a better place?? How does this serve humankind?
C'mon you guys. Good people disagree about things. They have sharp words sometimes. From what I've read above, there isn't a single person in this debate qualified to throw the first stone.
personal one-on-one attacks i can take. sweeping generalizations that marginalizes a gender and dismisses a philosphy that strives to empower them, that i cannot take.
kos says there are other blogs who could use the traffic. quite right. i can do my activism just as well on other sites. as somebody else pointed out, the grassroots does all the work and kos gets to take all the credit. i rather somebody else get credit for my volunteering and donations i make. somebody whose more align with my principles. somebody who doesn't sneer at feminism. nothing unreasonable about that. you wouldn't expect a black person to keep loyal patronage to a racist.
Your home page its great
Thank you for this post, we are a online dating website blog network, which college students read our blog, so thanks and well post this article on our blog. Jennifer @ University of Syracusewoman seeking men
Commenting by HaloScan
