got so big because our sense of disenfranchisement had been growing.  I agree with you on many of your individual points, but the feeling that was left behind made a number of women look around and say  "Whoa."

People wanted you booted because you were mad at Summers?  Damn.

I didn't really have an opinion on that brouhaha, though I was leaning away from yours.  But damn.

I don't even call for your head because you say "heh" any more.  Heh.

it seems to me that it was the order of events.  had NARAL happened before Summers, the Summers dialogue would have been different.

hard as we try to hold political discourse to laws of logic, we don't usually succeed.  this place is a bubbling cauldron that reacts differently to the same thing at different points in time.

you and kos first convinced me on NARAL.  then the dialogue persuaded me to the other side (lurker, always).  but the dialogue/aftershocks really opened wounds, I think, and we're freshly aware that even the progressive wing of the democratic party is willing to play ball with the "pro-life" position.  and this is now considered a perfectly reasonable request.

so that sets up a very different dynamic.

your treatment of summers was commendable, however.  I missed the attempt to mutiny, I would have defended.

but kos' comments have painted him into the corner as someone who does not respect women.  willing to defend and respect are two very different things.

I objected to Summer stuff - and here on Kos.  My reaction to the pie fight was just to make a snark. Frankly, I thought the ad silly, junior high level stuff - and wildly inappropriate for this site, but not worth making a big deal over. I did look at it, expected a real groaner of an anti-Repub site of some kind. Oh, I was wrong.

The reason this issue got so much more play from women than the Summers debacle, is that:

1. it's visual, with fake boobs in your face at eye level when you are reading diaries and comments. Summers obviously isn't visual. And,

2. this stuff is personal.

Now, Mr. Summers attitudes are very important to me, and likely more important period, IMO. However, I'm an academic, and that made the Sumner stuff salient to me, as I've had to live with those attitudes throughout my career. In short, personal.

The Pie Fight stuff is something a lot of women have to deal with   frequently, too. Plane flights by "Hooter's Air". Business meetings at strip joints. A breast-laden advertising culture. And while a few of us on Kos are female academics, many more of us have experienced the sometimes less-than-thrilling experience of being around guys who are boob-obsessed. Nothing wrong with having breasts, liking them, admiring them, etc. But when they go up on a political website, you can expect that they will become conflated with the political content.

And it is kind of interesting that women are expected to put up with this kind of thing, while many fewer men or women would put up with exactly the same sort of thing were the humor done at the expense of religion, ethnicity, or race.  It's interesting that a friend looking over my shoulder remarked that that's what we should expect from a young male of Latino-Greek background, referring to Markos. Now that is an ethnic slur (which I do not intend), but it illustrates the problem, I think.

What I do find troubling is Kos's comments. I frankly expect someone with his political savvy to be wiser. And also, when he goofs, as he has this time, I expect more grace in apologizing about an overreaction, without leaving up insulting coments. Frankly, Kos sounds like he needs to spend more time around women - relatives don't count here.

It's the attitude, Kos. Yours.

I didn't realize this issue was all about Armando, and Armando's diaries, and people's responses to Armando's diaries, and Armando's opinion of people's responses to Armando's diaries....

On NARAL, I think my arguments just and proper in criticizing NARAL. Infact, I have serious problems with the counter arguments I face because I find them supremely dishonest, never addrressing my points.

 that supporting men like Casey and Langevin (and thus Democrats) will preserve reproductive rights. Indeed, we believe (and not without reason) that the party has decided to jettison these issues or lower the bar to bravely defending contraceptives, a position which has like a 92% approval rating rather than the 72% approval that preserving Roe has. We likewise do not buy the notion that polls this early out tell us much about reality in '06.

AndI take serous issue with the reaction of the women here on the Summers controversy.

I absolutely agree with this. I wasn't too fond of the reactions of many men either.

And kos makes a good point, there is a lack of perspective on this ad it seems to me. To me Summers was supremely important. This is nothing to that issue. Where was the firestorm HERE on that?

The issue is no longer the ad, at least I don't think so. the issue is the reactions to the ad in subsequent threads.

bullshit.

I'm still waiting to hear people tell me how NRA should not have given Dean an "A" because he was a Democrat.

You advocate advocacy, but evidently don't get ideological advocacy... it's groups that advocate for principles rather than for extant groups.

kos has a blind eye for these issues and why they are primary principles.

Re: the ad didn't bother me a bit, bothered me less than the guy pissing on the "W".  But ads don't bother me much just because they are pedestrian or campy.

You are definitely one of the reasons I stick around. Plus, I get to feel less guilty about my style of argument when there's somebody around who argues a similar way.  :-)

I did weigh in on the Summers thing briefly. But it was only one comment. Frankly I agreed with your position on Summers' responsibility as an administrator, not an academic, to choose his words carefully.

But you shouldn't generalize about the reasons more women didn't jump in on this bandwagon.  For my part, I just think of academia as just another big business in this country. Sadly, I lost my respect for US academic institutions -- especailly the "elite" institutions -- long ago. They have, within the past 10 years or so, become nothing more than educational mills/money makers in the eyes of the deans and presidents. So this outrages me no more/no less than any other corporate outrage. And, frankly, I can't keep up with my corporate outrage!

I apologize for my feeling on this, but that's a whole different topic!