Skip to main content

So over the weekend, certain segments of the community have erupted in anger over the TBS ad for their reality show, the Real Gilligan's Island. Apparently, having two women throw pies at each other, wrestle each other in a sexy, lesbianic manner, then having water splashed on their ample, fake bosoms is degrading to women. Or something like that.

Whatever. Feel free to be offended. I find such humorless, knee-jerk reactions, to be tedious at best, sanctimonious and arrogant at worst. I don't care for such sanctimony from Joe Lieberman, I don't care for it from anyone else. Some people find such content offensive. Some people find it arousing. Some people find it funny. To each his or her own.

But I am not Lieberman. I won't sit there and judge pop culture and act as gatekeeper to what I think is "appropriate", and what isn't.

And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site. Feel free to be offended. Feel free to claim that I'm somehow abandoning "progressive principles" by running the ad. It's a free country. Feel free to storm off in a huff. Other deserving bloggers could use the patronage.

Me, I'll focus on the important shit.

p.s. And congratulations -- the more people have bitched about the ad, the more successful it has become. It is now the most successful ad in the history of this site, with close to 8,000 click throughs over the low-traffic weekend. And, now that you have demanded I respond to the ad, thousands more will click through to see what the big deal is all about.

Sometimes, the best way to kill something you disagree with is to ignore it.

Update: Hmm, after considering the early feedback, it seems most people didn't have a problem with the ad, but had a huge problem with my sweeping generalization of the "women's studies set".

It's a fair critique, and duly noted. I stand by everything else written, which is offensive enough to some people as is. But I honestly didn't mean to smear anyone who has ever taken a women's studies course, or majored or minored or gotten an advance degree in it. Just what is, to me, a small, extremist set looking for signs of female subjugation under every rock. So yeah, a poor choice of words that cast the net far too wide to cover the people that have, in fact, pissed me off.

Sorry about that, but not sorry about my broader point -- that being sanctimonious about this ad is no different than the sanctimony we decry from people like Lieberman, Dobson, and the Family Values Coalition.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:01 PM PDT.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Agreed (3.00)
    If the "moral police" hadn't complained, you wouldn't have posted, and I wouldn't have noticed the ad probably.  I only really read the top ads anyhow, as I can do that while the page fully loads.
    •  PWN3D!! (3.08)
      LMAO! Right on, Kos.

      Now I too must check out this ad....

      I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony

      by BuckMulligan on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:19:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kos, I love it (3.00)
      when you get provocative - makes me all hot bothered.  Makes me feel like....pie.

      "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

      by fishhead on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:00:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Freedom of speach, just watch what you say. (2.66)
        I am going to be extremely harsh, but I am sick of the platitudes, I want to have a real conversation.  Kos hits this at the margins.

        Take the endorsement of Lincoln Chafee by NARAL, most Womens Studies types that I know were not even slightly upset by that.  But I almost blew a gasket.  I was livid.  We lost dozens of legislators holding fast over womens rights, and at the end of the day, that loyalty is rewarded with a knife in the back.  If I showed even the slightest bit of anger, I was treated like a neanderthal or a philistine.  My opinion was clearly irrelevant to them.  So I stopped talking about it with them.  I am still seething over this whole thing.  Fucking bullshit.  I won't forget that.

        I care about liberty, free speach, jobs, Social Security, unions, Iraq, children, education, crime, housing, the environment and many other issues that will determine out national destiny.  It doesn't mean I don't care about womens rights, or won't do what I believe is right, it just isn't my whole world.

        I also believe that if I charge the Republican guns on their behalf and get shot down they will not care, they won't join the battle, they will stay at a safe distance where they debate their issues within the confines of their portable echo chamber.  I can't trust them.  They don't have my back.  They aren't 'really' on my side because they will only watch my teams slaughter from a distance even though it was their idea to hold that particular battlefield.  And if my whole state is wiped out, and replaced by Republicans, it will sound exactly the same in their echo chamber.  But to me, I will have lost most everything I care about.

        Pride goeth before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:8

        by PJ 7 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 04:17:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Front page at 11:09pm PDT (3.50)
      " Turning that corner" - Bush's sunny optimism vs. reality in Iraq
      * 37 comments
      "More Dirt on Bolton Uncovered by AP Probe" - stands on its own
      * 53 comments
      "In Defense of Progressives" - Armando's defense of Sen. Ben Nelson
      * 250 comments
      "The Hyper-Rich are Very Different from You and Me" - Economic disparity approaching pre-Depression levels
      * 103 comments
      "Science Sunday: a vaccine for the Ebola and Marburg viruses?" - Plutonium Page's educational piece on biological disaster
      * 50 comments

      "Pie fight ad"
      * 301 comments.

      Priorities.  

      Yeah, we've got them covered...

      He who gives up liberty in exchange for security is deserving of neither

      by joby on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:15:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All politics (4.00)
        is local.

        People get most fired up about things that impact them personally.

        •  and sometimes, there lies the problem. (3.50)
          If we all continue on our immediate needs and desires at the expense of the world around us, how does that make us any different than the republicans?

          I thought that we as liberals/progressives/democrats were able to rise above that in order to focus on what is best for all of us.

          Maybe I'm wrong and should just start worrying about myself first at the expense of everyone else.

          He who gives up liberty in exchange for security is deserving of neither

          by joby on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:24:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think it is that (3.80)
            ALL "minorities" in America currently feel under assault as a result of living under BushCo.  Every demographic has reason to believe its core issue is being demolished, so people are prone to jumping up and down about their one big thing.
      •  Even Liberals (3.71)
        need a break at times.  I think many of us come here so often that just sheer curiousity about this ad sorta makes us want to get out of the daily grind of a political discussion and see what this was about.

        I'm a woman, a feminist, and I clicked.   A Pie Fight doesn't really bother me. There was always a sexual tension in Gilligan's Island between those two girls. I only got irked because the site kept telling me to choose a format and when I did, it asked me again so it never opened.

        Other than that, if two actresses wanna dress up like Mary Jane and Ginger and throw pie at each other, fine.  Erotic things do not debase women in my opinion.  It's a celebration of feminine sexuality, and was performed by two consenting adult women.  They weren't forced to do it.  We have such prude people in this country on both sides of the "aisle".  If they wanna look "whorish" or "erotic" or whatever, it's up to them!

        What debases women is taking away their rights to do that if they want to, or to drive, vote, or have choice over their bodies and lives. Republicans debase women far more than that skit did.

        Repressing sexuality creates the freaks that are after judges in the far right, the homophobes and the intolerance of sex on TV.  I would rather see that, any day of the week, than the pornography that is supposedly "news", or the wanton violence in the various series.  Europe has gotten over sex and nudity on TV, so should we.  If we would get OVER it, then a little bit of sexual repartee would not be regarded as "perverse".  
        It would be seen as it should be seen, normal and HEALTHY. We would recognize what is truly perverse, the violence.

        Make Love, Not War!

        Joy -- who has been in a couple of pie fights herself.

      •  -exactly, (none)
        and people wonder why the news sucks...
        this is why, people
    •  And look (3.00)
      The morals police have twos and they're not afraid to use them. Have a four to counteract them.

      Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

      by Goldfish on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:31:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Future adverts on DKos? (3.64)
      Two black Americans having a "watermelon fight" and saying "yassuh" a lot?  Would that be ok?  I mean, it's not "politically correct" but fuck that, eh?  Oh, and Kos will begin selling Confederate flags and other such memorabilia--I mean, it's his site and he needs to earn, doesn't he?  Sure, the Confederate flag represents the hateful legacy of slavery and racial oppression, but Kos doesn't want to be the gatekeeper of popular culture.

      Well, why not?  Kos has made it quite plain that women are second-class citizens, and I find his attitude on this issue condescending and insulting.  I also find it quite disturbing that he refuses to take responsibility for what is advertised on his own website. It's not as if he lacks for blogad revenue; is it too much to ask a "liberal" website to display the barest modicum of sensitivity towards women and men who object to the blatant sexism of the "pie fight" ad?  Of course it is, silly!  It's not as if Kos can control what's on his site--and he's made it quite plain that he realises the ad is sexist and doesn't give a damn.

      Women's issues are treated as "special issues" on the DailyKos--and increasingly, throughout the Democratic Party as a whole--and the whole controversy over the "pie fight" was really sparked by that, not by some sanctimony on the part of those who are upset.

      I'm sure that one of Kos' many demographic surveys reveal that men outnumber women 3 to 1 on this site--which must be one reason why he feels free to dismiss their legitimate concerns.  

      However, there is a larger issue involved here, far more than some silly advert that will be forgotten in about as much time as it takes to watch it--and that is the issue of how women's issues are treated here on DKos.

      Abortion rights, for example...dismissed by Kos as a "special interest" that is not a "core value" of the Democratic Party.  I say, if you don't have control over your own body, you don't have any human rights, period--and if that's not a core value of the Democratic Party, then why would any progressive-minded person in his or her right mind want to support it?

      There is a consistent pattern on DailyKos of misogyny--yes, you read right--and I have found it on other "liberal" websites which (surprise) were founded and are operated by men.  The frat boy hootings and whoopings one finds elsewhere in the comments appended to this badly-written half-thought masquerading as a diary provide evidence that the misogyny is not only prevalent, but in most cases quite deliberate.

      And yes, I fully realise that the frat boy club and the DKos Diary Police are going to swoop down upon this comment and rate it zeros and 1s.  I don't give a good goddamn for the rating system, by the way, as I see it as a tool for intimidation and for enforcing groupthink.  So rate away--but I stand behind my remarks (and I actually softened them upon edit so as not to frighten children and horses).

      There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

      by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:37:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What a silly post (2.80)
        Comparing these ads to racism? So you view female sexuality as threatening. Thats not our problem. Some women.. the "pc police" feel the same way.
        The ad is a tongue in cheek joke about a staple of american sexual mythology.  

        Believe it or not all human beings are sexual beings. Yes even women. All human beings have a part of them that likes to be seen as sexual beings. Yes even women. All human beings have a part of them that looks at other human beings as sexual beings. Yes even women. That it offends you probably says more about your view of women than a tongue in cheek ad intentionally poking at a staple of sexuality in american culture.

        Its rather curious where the voices of you protectors of american womanhood from evil evil sex only show up at something this silly , humorous and meaningless.

        The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

        by cdreid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:50:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sexism doesn't equal racism? (3.66)
          It's odd, I could copy and paste your comment into FreeRepublic or onto Rush Limbaugh's official site, word for word, and it would fit in there exactly.

          Now, why is that?

          Is it because you just don't get it?  Being sexually interested in women doesn't make you sexist--making them into objects, as this advert does, makes you sexist.

          It really shouldn't be called "sexism" at all because that's a poor description of what's happening.  "Objectification" and "gender discrimination" are far better descriptors.

          Men aren't treated the same way as women; men are not made into objects whose primary asset is their physical beauty, rather than their character or intelligence.  Women have to fight EVERY DAY to be taken seriously as intelligent creatures.  That's why many women are so sensitive to slights such as this one.

          However, I find the ad itself not so monumentally offencive--since it will quickly fade into oblivion, like most pop culture--but the vicious, offencive manner in which Markos and his frat boy posse have defended the advert.  Actually, I didn't even notice the advert until this diary was posted--but I DID notice that Markos went out of his way to deliberately insult people who dared question him.

          By the way, you seem to know an awful lot about me for somebody who doesn't even know my gender.  Perhaps you don't me at all?  That must be it.

          There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

          by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:06:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you had a mind (2.24)
            You'd see the ad for what it is. But no.. you want to control women. To control their bodies. To control their image. To control how they wish to portray themselves. To attack any notion that they are sexual beings.

            And most of all... you want to censor an ad that is actually a humorous completely tongue in cheek jab at the advertising industries use of sex (Both sexs btw) to sell. You're nothing but a self appointed control freak neo-puritan. I feel pity that sexuality of any sort whatsoever offends you and hope you manage to work through that in counseling. But its not my problem, it's not Kos's problem and its not Americas' problem. Its yours.

            The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

            by cdreid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:16:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you for clarifying that (3.26)
              Everybody who opposes YOU is mentally ill, requires counseling, has sexual difficulty.

              Ah, I see--you and Kos are normal and thereby define what is normal and acceptable.

              And anybody who agrees with you has a diseased mind (or else are mentally feeble).

              Your accusations remind me of somebody.  Let me see...oh, that's right--the far right-wing Republicans who, rather than answering arguments, launch personal attacks on one's intellectual capacities and mental health.

              Well, the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.  You are merely mimicking the behaviour and attitudes that Kos himself has shown--monkey see, monkey do.

              There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

              by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:24:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wanna compare street cred (1.82)
                On dkos? You sure you want to do that with either me, marcos or the plethora of other posters who consider your shrieks of outrage idiotic?

                I seriously, seriously doubt it.

                The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                by cdreid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 04:14:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I have made it clear... (1.62)
                  ...that I don't value your opinion, nor those of your frat boy "posse".  I find your attempt to bludgeon me into submitting to the alpha chimp ridiculous in the extreme--my last similar experience was nearly 30 years ago, when I was in junior high.

                  Well, this isn't junior high, but apparently we do have some folks here who haven't progressed emotionally past their early teen boy years.  You appear incapable of grasping that simple fact.

                  Now, why are you wasting valuable Net time arguing with me when you could be downloading porn?  Isn't there a "lesbianpiefight.com" site you should be visting?

                  There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

                  by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 11:11:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Alphachimp? (none)
                    I'm curious as to how Maryscott and the other women who seem to find your position ridiculous fit the "teen boy" stereotype. But i guess theyre the enemy too. Buhbye now

                    The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                    by cdreid on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 02:14:14 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Here's what MaryScott said (none)
                      MaryScott O'Connor:

                      I've decided to be Switzerland on this topic (4.00 / 8)

                      and reserve most of my commentary to liberally sprinkling 4s throughout the discussion(s).

                      But I do have something to say in response to this:

                      If you want to direct your anger somewhere, how about a little to the actresses that continue to portray that kind of act willingly (and professionally)?

                      While we're at it, maybe we should direct our anger toward all those prostitutes out there, perpetuating the stereotype of woman as sex objects?

                      Actresses need to make a living, too - and unfortunately most of the good acting jobs have 45 thousand people competing for them. You want to make a living as an actor? You take evry job you can get.

                      It's the ones with the money and the decision-making power and the editorial power toward whom we must direct our anger. They're the ones who need to change; not the working class women who are simply trying to survive. And trust me -- the vast majority of actors are "working class." And working at least 2 jobs, at that.

                      You've misrepresented her position.  She said she was "Switzerland" (aka NEUTRAL) and didn't comment on my position at all.

                      You, sir, are a lying sack of shit.

                      There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

                      by Shadowthief on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:57:46 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  pie ad (3.00)
            I wonder how the boys would like to be filmed covered with whip cream wrestling each other?  Hmmmm!  Maybe that is why they get the girls to do it.
            •  I think (none)
              you can probably find a number of gay stage shows doing exactly that.  So if they'll let you videotape it....

              Hell, if there was a market for it, I'm sure you could find many men (straight and gay) willing to wrestle in whip cream.  I just don't think there's a large audience.

        •  This is not about female sexuality (3.90)
          this is about a male fantasy.  
          •  And a female fantasy (3.28)
            And HUMOR.

            What is really pretty funny is that the ad is really a self-mocking parody of the advertising industries use of sex to sell.

            The people shrieking at this ad must think Monty Python is an affront to god..

            The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

            by cdreid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 04:21:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's SO much a Super Bowl Beer Commercial (3.37)
              ....It's NOT funny.  It reduces women two four (big) boobies (sexist comment intended) who can't reason or discuss anything, but have to resort to a soft-porn version of a straight man's fantasy world.  It does nothing for me sexually, but maybe that's because I'm "a gay."

              Well, after this, I should think nothing of falling down stairs.

              by Alice Burro on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:11:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It did nothing for me either (3.64)
                And unlike most your response is reasoned and states your actual objections. So let me respond in kind.

                First: It is Humor. You can see much much more sexual content by: turning on your television or opening a web browser. Monty python, Benny Hill.. FRIENDS used more sexual humor than this. And a certain group are allll atwitter....

                Second: It's also a gay womans fantasy. How does he know! you ask. He knows because his best friend on earth is a gay woman.

                Third: There are two definite segments of political women and of gay women who get very upset that women have any sort of sexuality at all. And both groups are much, much, much more sexist than the average bubba.

                An explanation.  Women, as men, use social controls as a weapon against other women they consider more attractive. Again.. men do it to other men as well but its less pronounced. Wear a lowcut dress and you are both a whore and an affront to womens rights according to this group. Cut your hair off, perm it, wear body hiding clothes and pretend at a distaste for sex, or at least sex with men and you are a heroine for the cause. If you doubt this in the slightest or think it is because of a built in cultural gender belief
                there have been several studies that examined these phenomena. To make the point clearer lets switch the roles. A man goes into a bar. He has very long flowing hair, wears tight black leather pants that show off his body, a white linen shirt unbuttoned down the front. And moves his hips in a very sexual way (intentionally). He faces open, rabid hostility from every other man in the bar.
                This isnt a hypothetical. In college i remember this specific study and its' being repeated. The males in the bar were threatened by the open sexuality of the man who was in effect... advertising to the women for sex and very effectively. Now reverse the sex's.  A group of people going to dinner. One of the women, who happens to be unusually attractive and well built, wears a very low cut revealing dress. And moves in what can only be described as tempting or erotic. she will face instant open hostility from the other women who view her as a sexual threat.

                This is exactly what i believe we are seeing here from one group. It isnt about "womens rights! Abortion! Degrading women!!".. it is about sexual and personal insecurity from a particular group. The group who applies social pressure to make women do the "you're middle age now!" thing. Ie get a perm, wear pants suits, hide your body, be very nonsexual..

                The other group i believe are quite simply controlling and sexist in exactly the same way the very worst of male chauvinists are. IE Women must hate sex. Women must be nonsexual. Women must never express a desire to appeal sexually to others (of either sex). Women must attempt to follow the male socialpath. etc etc etc.

                Third and finally: Hypocrasy. The rank sort. IE a woman who wears a lowcut top, short skirt, tight jeans is a whore. Whereas a woman who exposes her breast in a restaurant to breast feed is a "hero of the revolution". Its ridiculous, hypocritical and vile. Human beings are human beings. Both women and men are sexual beings. If this commercial had been of two young well built shirtless males doing EXACTLY the same thing the very people attacking it would have been praising it for its "support of women and homosexual males!". It would have been a cause celebre.....

                The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                by cdreid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:38:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am rating all your posts a 4 (3.25)
                  I've come real late to this debate and while I would like to express my opinion and support of Kos, after reading your posts, I will just say that you have written my thoughts about this whole incident 10 times better than I ever could. Thanks.
                •  I am rating all your posts a 1. (2.33)
                  And ShadowThief gets the 4s.

                  Markos gets a big fat fucking ZERO for running the ad and then defending it by equating feminists to the far-right.

                  •  Dont worry (none)
                    We're used to mindless idiots such as yourself unable to read the faq on the ratings system. And i personally consider troll ratings from fools a badge of honor.

                    The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                    by cdreid on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 02:10:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  well (none)
                      I've never given anyone a zero or a one before...in fact...I only hand out fours to those that deserve it.

                      But your "if you had a mind" comment above got a 1 from me.  And even though I didn't give you a zero, I still think you're a nasty troll.  Your condescending and mean-spirited comments up and down this thread belong somewhere else...and not Free Republic...even they would probably ban you...you're better suited for the Protest Warrior Website...you know...the Website whose only mission is to attack the left.

                      •  You have no idea (none)
                        who you're talking about. And your attacks are baseless.

                        You are perfectly correct to rate the "if you had a mind" comment with a one or zero. It's definitely trollworthy so feel free and rest assured that even the target supports your decision.

                        As for mean spirited - I dont see you running around saying that about the people making baseless idiotic attacks on Kos and anyone who doesnt stand up and salute the fringe nuts whos biggest concern is.. a rather bland commercial. Nope.. instead you find yourself deeply angered and annoyed that anyone would DARE speak harshly to people who viciously slander anyone who doesnt jump on their hysterical bandwagon.

                        Wanna work for womens rights? Work towards toughening discrimination laws, domestic laws, right to chooose laws, child support enforcement, et al. Dont spend all your time shouting hysterically about a breast in an advertisement.

                        The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                        by cdreid on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 03:23:28 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  again (none)
                          you insist on using the word "hysterical" even though  you damn well know that's one of the most mysogynistic things you could say about a woman.  And that is why my "attack" was anything but "baseless."
                          •  You're darn tootin i used the word hysterical (4.00)
                            Its a word. Its in the dictionary. I'll use it. Because you traced its very sylables back through twenty cultures and ten languages seeking to find its tie to a vagina doesnt mean i wont use it. Id think it means that you're creating your own boogeymen so you can avoid the real ones out there all around us.

                            Go ask a single mom living with her parents who has no future because she has to be a mother and cant go to school or get a job or spend time with her friends ... if she's deeply offended by the hideous sexist word hysterical. She'll laugh in your face before she tells you to get out.

                            The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                            by cdreid on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:18:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  uh-huh (none)
                            Yes, I'm sure she'd appreciate having her entire life reduced to a stereotype.  If she objects, you can call her hysterical.
                •  The perm and pantsuit mafia (none)
                  Dude, you lost me when you said that those who oject to the objectification of women want to see the world wearing perms and pantsuits.  I personally have never worn a pantsuit, and I burned all of my pictures from the 80's proving I ever had a perm.  

                  I also took a women's studies course, once, and perhaps I was doing it wrong, and I'm sure many will have stories counter to mine claiming they first did battle with the radical feminist gestapo in their women's studies courses, but I found it to be an enlightening course that occasionally delved into the history of women and women's sexuality.  Pie fights never came up, per say, but sometimes we discussed the sexual socialization of women, and the many things the women in the class had done that seemed contrary to their nature, and that caused a certain amount of puzzlement and shame later on.  Perhaps if women were allowed to embrace their sexuality without fear or shame, we would all get boob jobs, run around in halter tops, and throw merengue at each other, but I honestly don't think that's the direction we would choose to go.  I dunno, maybe I'm a prude.  And frankly, I don't even know how to spell merengue, let alone the best way to go about lobbing it at another woman.  Do you aim for the face or the chest?  Does it mean something else when you aim for the chest than when you aim for the face?  And what about the vagina?  For god's sake, what does it mean when you aim for the vagina?

                  That being said, I don't find the ad offensive.  I don't find it very clever either, though.  I'm not sure it should be compared to Python, whose women-objectifying-humor I always found very satisfying and clever, with an element of "do we think that naked women on horseback is funny, or do we think its funny that you think its funny?"  Again, maybe I'm totally misreading Python.  And misreading women's studies people, who actually DO want to secretly de-ball the world.  Who knows.

                  I do know that some of the comments here would even make O'Reilly blush at their intolerant tone.

                  Yikes.

                  •  Dont deal well with idiocy (none)
                    or slander on good people. And this thread was full of it. I realise everyone expects all lefties to be polite upper crust pacifists but some of us have big mouths and use them perhaps too often. I dont see your objections to the slander of Kos, to the troll rating by a very small group of fools of everyone who didnt jump on the whacko bandwagon.....

                    That being said your post made me laugh. Thanks.
                    And personally i think it would probably do us all a bit of good to take a womens studies, and a minority studies ,and a muslim studies course. Every decade or so. We all have our prejudices and blind spots and it can never hurt to have them mirrored so they can be countered..

                    The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                    by cdreid on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:32:14 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ermmmm (none)
                      Laugh in a positive way. It was quite a good post imho.

                      As to the pants suit and perm mafia.. i think you know what im talking about. Its' even begin to filter into entertainment as women begin to say "I'm old not dead. I Like sex. I Like to be sexy. At what age does that become a crime?"

                      The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                      by cdreid on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:35:24 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Pantsuits can be sexy (none)
                        Well, I fundamentally disagree with KOS.  When he says:

                        Apparently, having two women throw pies at each other, wrestle each other in a sexy, lesbianic manner, then having water splashed on their ample, fake bosoms is degrading to women. Or something like that.

                        Then I am tempted to say:

                        Apparently calling all men who enjoy watching two women throw pies at each other, wrestle each other in a sexy, lesbianic manner, then having water splashed on their ample, fake bosoms alphachimps is degrading to men.  Or something like that.

                        (I found the word alphachimp in one fo those posts that I believe you are referring to, above).

                        When he says that finding this sort of thing objectionable is a "knee-jerk" reaction, I sort of cringe.  Because thinking that women smearing pie filling on each other's breasts kind of sets back the attempt by women (who don't like to smear pie filling on each other's breasts) to be taken seriously as adult rational persons is not exactly "knee-jerk".  I could use the words knee and jerk in a far more appropriate context than that.  So then I think, "has Kos just pulled a Limbaugh (I just made that up!) and pushed aside a legitimate gripe that affects a significant portion of the population (whether they know it or not) because it interferes with his moral ability to make money and enjoy a little boob-smearing on the side?  A case could be made.

                        By the way, I do think it is degrading to call men alphachimps.  No joke! Kneeing jerks in the nads is wrong too!

                        Kos is a big-boy, and he has his very own blog.  Honest criticism towards his words should be expected.  Calling him an alphachimp should not, so okay - I object!

                        And finally, you haven't sufficiently explained: just what is wrong with women who wear pantsuits?  And how can we get the word pantsuit back into every day vocabulary usage?

                        •  Nothing (none)
                          is wrong with women wearing patssuits. Read my bigger post you should get the point. The problem isnt with women wearing pantssuits, bodyhiding clothes, getting perms etc etc.

                          It is with the other women insisting they do it. The OTHER women wanting to control their bodies, their sexuality, their sensuality. It's one of the never talked about forms of sexism.

                          As for criticising the ad or Kos for his post. Go for it. But dont expect everybody to shut up and not argue with you. And thats the thing. They arent just upset about the ad or Kos's post. They are most upset that DK isnt censored to fit their particular outlook. And that belongs in freeperville.. or maybe soviet russia. Not on DK.

                          The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                          by cdreid on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:03:16 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  cdreid (none)
                  "Third: There are two definite segments of political women and of gay women who get very upset that women have any sort of sexuality at all."

                  That is the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.  Just who do you think you are talking about?

            •  what I find funny (none)
              is the sterotype male that comes to my mind when I read your comments, and what a total turn off that is. But he, I am only a heterosexual woman, so what do I know about my own sexuality.
        •  enough with the self-indulgent male victimization (4.00)
          <<where the voices of you protectors of american womanhood from evil evil sex only show up at something this silly , humorous and meaningless.<br> >>

          They/we don't, but it says something about you, perhaps, that you only NOTICE it in contexts like this. If you're not seeing the depth of criticism/commentary/thought on these sorts of things, except when somebody doesn't like a beloved, titillating ad -- its only because you dont care to pay attention.

          undercaffeinated

          by odum on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:33:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are at best stupid, at worst willfully blind, (4.00)
          and probably both.

          First of all, before you get all up in my grill about female sexuality and being ashamed and all those other feeble rabbit punches you have in your arsenal, let it be known that I am a bonafide pornographer. I sell that shit every working day of my life and I know ALL the angles. I have no problem with porn, with female sexuality, male sexuality, lesbianism, homosexuality, what you do in your bedroom or to whom, as long as they're human, of legal age and consenting.

          Let's talk about sex. That ad has NOTHING to do with female sexuality. That is pseudo-lesbianism designed to titillate and draw in the male gaze based on a widely-known American male sexual peccadillo. Whose staple of sexuality is it? I mean, really, come on. We all know that a lotta guys get off watching two women get it on, especially when they're caricatures of women doing it for the benefit of the male viewer. Those two women potentially getting off is NOT the point. It's the viewer, you, the guy, getting off that is the point.

          By knowing that, I play thousands of men like a fiddle using it to get you to open your wallet, watch my program, buy my images.

          Now let's talk money. That ad is firstly, BADLY TARGETED MARKETING. You don't market to a group of people who are going to end up resenting the hell out of you for it. You can't make money off people you piss off. What constitutes money in this context? this includes all the posters and lurkers who provide free content, page views, ad clickthroughs and donations to candidates promoted on this site.

          Now let's put both sex and money together, and put it in a politically progressive site with a really big female demographic. Because clearly you didn't notice, that ad is a signal, shorthand for all the little things that are unsaid, that women have to struggle against to this very day. Being used as an object, in imagery or reality, and sold for money. Sounds a little like prostitition, doesn't it? How does that go over in a progressive site? Like a lead balloon. And if it doesn't for you, then I feel sorry for you. You're deadened to the concerns of a good crosssection of the Democratic community.

          Yeah, it's a dumb, softcore ad. I thought little of it when I first say it last week-- I haven't even clicked on it. And sadly, it's not really the ad that bothered me. What really chafes my ass about this whole issue is that some of the Kossacks here can't see this for what it is, and are coldly insulting about it to boot. That ad is a visual signal, shorthand for a whole world of issues that women have to struggle against every day, in large, explicit ways and small, banal, implicit ways. Do I REALLY have to ennumerate them all here? Are you really that tiresomely stupid?

          I can tolerate Miller Lite catfight commercials during football games and other dumb sexual marketing ploys in the proper context, but by God I want some respect out of my political community. Put the tits in your bedroom where they belong. This is dailykos.com, not fucking nerve.com.

          For all the talk of seeing nuance and shades of gray and how great Dems are because of it, and how big tent we want to be, I'm not seeing it here. And to not see it in the leader of this site, someone who's a Dem, progressive, and a minority is especially disappointing.

          Sorry my first and last post was a flame. I'm taking my vote, my clickthroughs and my political contributions elsewhere.

          •  Thanks for your one and only post (none)
            covers all my angles.
          •  It's a liberal issue (none)
            I think that what many people are finding so frustrating right now is that here, in this liberal blog-oasis they have come to trust, a place many have found to be a refuge from the disappointing reality of the MSM, they find themselves in a position of having to explain to their fellow liberals why, not the pie fight ad, but the dismissive attitudes of their fellows over what they consider real concerns of social bias and denigration toward women aren't cool.  Pornographer-Nixie said far better than I ever could why women smearing whipped cream over each other's titties probably isn't an expression of women's quest for sexual liberation and general equality.  I suppose many of us just considered it a foregone conclusion that subjugation happens, and that it is harmful to society as a whole, and that this is fundamentally a liberal issue.  And that pointing out seemingly innocuous examples of this in a liberal blog shouldn't earn one the title of hysterical women's studies groupie ... just call me a liberal, please.
      •  Good post, but you ignore an important fact (4.00)
        Hatred and contempt for black people is a cultural artifact, and is not "hard wired" into the brains of white people. In contrast, the sexual arousal of heterosexual males when exposed to images of two mostly naked, big-boobed, child-like females engaged in a pie fight is rooted in biology. You should be offended by these stereotypes, but this kind of thing will always be appealing to men. Sadly, I was aroused by it, and I'm 44 years old!

        "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

        by chimpwatch on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:10:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry, but that's nonsense (3.91)
          The United States is the only country where this "biology is destiny" nonsense is tolerated, encouraged, and widely promulgated.  It's considered utter nonsense everywhere else in the civilised world.

          Well, of course heterosexual men like to look at women's breasts.  It's healthy and normal to do so.

          BUT--This isn't about whether or not you find the ad sexually titillating, nor about sexual prudishness.  It is about making women into objects--and that was done deliberately, consciously, not because it was "hard wired" into the human brain.

          I personally don't think the ad is worth fighting over, tho'--it's a tempest in a teapot.  What's upset me is the way Kos and others have reacted to criticism--not mildly, but with a withering anti-feminine blast that is truly disheartening.  Some of the comments I've read, from Kos and from defenders of his comments, have been quite hateful.

          There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

          by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 11:18:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not biology (4.00)
            Well said. I'd dispute the premise that there's a biological reason why men ogle women's breasts. That comes from our culture...

            In the 1920s, men were told that flat breasts were what was attractive. (The flapper look.) In the centuries before that, "Rubenesque" women were the ideal...

            I think it's important to recognize this as being a product of our culture, because otherwise people dismiss the roots of sexism as something unchangeable, beyond control. ("Hey, whaddya gonna do. Biology!")

            •  Yes, biology (none)
              As somebody whose field of study includes biology, I can't but disagree. True, cultural trends come and go, also creating trends in what is considered sexually attractive. Well, I have noticed these trends are often quite vague and not necessarily adopted generally.

              The breasts and buttocks of women have always been sexual objects for men. You can find praise of breasts in the Old Testament and in paleolithic statuettes. Old far-eastern paintings sexualize breasts. Even during temporary cultural trends like the 20's the majority of men living in that culture found breasts and buttocks sexually attractive. Trends aren't something that penetrate the whole culture deeply, changing our basic traits completely. The trend of flat breasts of the 20's can be compared to the trend of wearing a certain type of clothing: even though it is considered trendy, only some people actually do wear those clothes.

              And the main point of it all is this: even if we think ogling breasts is only caused by our culture, it doesn't change the fact that ogling itself is not a product of culture - it's a biological trait of sexually reproducing animals. It might be (although I do not agree) that the target of men's ogling changes and varies, but the fact that men ogle doesn't. It isn't "beyond control", but it's a natural urge like reproduction itself. (Yes, I did go to see the pie ad.)

              I find it fortunate that increasingly we're starting to realize the biological factors behind our motives and behavior, instead of thinking of human beings as blank slates by birth which then get written by culture alone. For me it humbling to know we're no different from our relatives, the other mammals. This can be compared to the humblig experience that the invention of Evolutionary Theory brought us - we're not some kind of semi-gods who are supposed to rule the planet.

              And finally: if anybody thinks my comments are support of "my genes made me do it" thinking or other kind of biological determinism, or that we can't control our behavior (for instance, when we get the urge to ogle at breasts), he or she should get his/her head examined.

      •  4 (3.64)
        Excellent comment.  I am not at all surprised that people are reacting to you with hostility, but it's interesting to see so-called progressives revealing their true colors about these sorts of issues, every time it happens.

        Here's a tip for the Democrats -- backing down on abortion, dismissing reproductive rights as being unimportant, and being a pale imitation of the Republicans in the way you think of women is not an especially good way to win.

        By the way, I'm a feminist, I'm not missing a sense of humor, and I don't give a tin shit about the pie ad.

        •  Nature? Nurture? (4.00)
          Well - maybe.

          I can almost remember from the farther away parts of my education reading about what different peoples of the world consider arousing or attractive. (Perhaps the more Anthropologially skilled among us could care to comment.)

          Apparently there are places in the world where a girl can't hardly get a date without an artificially elongated neck or decorative scars on her face.

          There ARE places on this earth where men exist that would find the Pie Fight amusing, maybe - puzzling, certainly - but hardly erotic. I'm just saying that it's possible that you are aroused by what has been presented to you as "sexy".

          Although, admittedly, those places are becoming fewer thanks to the steady march of "Western Civilization" to even the farthest reaches of the globe.

          Interesting side note: A small island in Micronesia finally got television. A while later, they began noticing bulimia in its population. Coincidence? Nah...

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/347637.stm

        •  You have it wrong (1.33)
          Selling out working men and women who are feeling fiscal stress tyhrough things such as NAFTA, etc. and voting along with the GOP to get their sons and daughters killed in Iraq are examples of a pale imitiation of the other side.

          So is shrill extremism, which you are an example of.

          •  Selling out (4.00)
            Hey, I'm opposed to selling out workers' rights as much as I'm opposed to selling out womens' rights.

            I'm also opposed to concerns written by women about reproductive freedom being dismissed as "shrill".  What, in particular, in the previous post, was "shrill"?  Is the shrillness in the eye of the beholder?

      •  Thank you Shadowthief. (3.75)
        You have given voice to my outrage far better than I can muster, looking at a daunting page of 700 posts. Personally, I find Kos's defense of this ad more offensive than the ad, itself. The ad is open to interpretation. His pompous dismissal of the feelings of his little community are not. Even amending the blatant insult of "women's studies" types, cannot erase the sting or the hide the attitude he's expressed. Women who don't want to objectified don't matter here, apparently.

        One more thing. This probably deserves a separate post, but I don't feel like waiting for the page to load. Being offended by this ad is not an attack on femaie sexuality, but a defense of it. There is a difference between the erotic and the profane. I'm a regular reader of CleanSheets.com, Goodvibes.com, and other woman-friendly erotica. But being a sexual being and being an object and a "male fantasy" are different. If one can't see how it diminishes our sexual power to so objectified, here's a clue. Notice how it outrages so many women. And, to dismiss a woman's voice in defense of her own body and sexuality as mentally ill, repressed, etc., is sexism. Unlike many women, I will even defend pornography as an avenue of expression, although, I deeply understand why it pushes the buttons of so many women who are made to feel unsafe by it. That men and some women enjoy such images privately, in their own time, is perfectly fine with me. I do think it's worthy of note, however, that the majority of women who work in pornography are rape and incest survivors. And, I will say that when I find my email chock full "teen sluts take big cock" type spam, I feel absolutely assaulted. And, I feel assaulted by this website right now.

        "I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or prostitute." ~ Rebecca West

        by Recordkeeper on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:40:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lesbians? (2.33)
          I know quite a few lesbians that proudly display their affinity for 'female objectification.' But of course that's different.

          You go to war with the defense secretary you have, not the defense secretary you might want or wish to have.

          by Bill Blanc on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:49:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well I know many lesbians too... (2.62)
            and have met very few who find female objectification acceptable. The lesbian community is one of the most aggressively feminist you will find. Again, try to keep up. Wanting to have sex with women and objectifying them is different. You think I find this unfunny? Let me put you in a room some time with some of my dyke friends and see how much objectification they will stand before tearing your face off.

            "I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or prostitute." ~ Rebecca West

            by Recordkeeper on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:10:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You (none)
              fundamentally misunderstand heterosexuality by attempting to paint all males as the same, with similar desires, and similar response.

              Yes, I have lesbian friends that proudly display images of women that look just like that and "ooh" and "ahh" over how hot they are.

              So your friends may be different, but therein lies the problem with you and your massive stereotype. All people are different.

              You go to war with the defense secretary you have, not the defense secretary you might want or wish to have.

              by Bill Blanc on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:19:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And YOU... (none)
                have apparently not read my posts. I'll cut you some slack and assume that you just don't understand them.

                "I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or prostitute." ~ Rebecca West

                by Recordkeeper on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:35:42 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  wise sage (none)
                  maybe you can give me a working definition of what you in the thought police community deem "objectification" and how it is different from "wanting to have sex with women."

                  There are just so many authors, with so many books about how we should all be and how we aren't all perfect, that it's hard to figure out which thought leader to listen to.

                  Personally, I am quite confident with my intellectual faculties, and  I observe no basis for your moral supremacy over me. I'll make my own judgements, thank you.

                  In general, I welcome moral criticism, but I won't stand for censorship or ahem lynch mob justice. ;)

                  You go to war with the defense secretary you have, not the defense secretary you might want or wish to have.

                  by Bill Blanc on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:09:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Aw, straw men again (3.57)
                    Lynch mob justice? Are we tarring and feathering dear old Kos?  I think not.  He started this fight with an attack on his critics, and hasn't the stomach to finish it in a fair combat of words. I find his silence on the issue quite noteworthy.

                    As for "censorship", neither I nor Recordkeeper nor anyone else here has called for censoring the "pie fight" ad.  I'm quite capable of ignoring it.

                    Our objection, as Recordkeeper made quite clear in her first post, is to the response of Kos and the others who have defended his blistering broadside against his critics--who sent their criticisms via private email, rather than make a public spectacle of themselves-and his scornful, disrespectful, even hateful treatment of them.

                    So quit thrashing the straw men, you are knocking all the stuffing out of them.

                    There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

                    by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 11:23:44 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  It's hard to... (3.00)
              ...believe that you're interested in an open exchange of ideas when you talk about how your "debate opponent" is likely to have his or her face torn off. I think that frankly this sort of shameful, quasi-threatening comment has no place on kos.
        •  Exactly (3.77)
          And what's truly disappointing is how Kos, and others who have expressed their opinoins here, simply do not understand issues of power and power realationships. And this power issue certainly does not apply to women alone, but everyone who is oppressed.

          The objectification of women - and support of it - cuts right to the heart of exercising power. It says women are not as important and, as Recordkeeper mentioned, it also says that women who have a problem with it don't matter.

          I agree with Recordkeeper and Shadowthief - it's the mean and dismissive attitudes here that upset me. I see plenty of crap on TV, in movies and in advertising that blatantly objectifies women. Does it piss me off? Yes. I suppose I just didn't expect the same attitudes from a group of people who often consider themselves enlightened.

        •  where do you get this stuff? (2.33)
          "... the majority of women who work in pornography are rape and incest survivors."

          this is just absurd. i'd like to see some documentation for this claim, and i won't accept any source published by an organization with the words "family" or "faith" in its name.

          anyway, what's your point? even if true, what does it have to do with a racy commercial, or with kos' apparently inflammatory remark? same goes for most of your post, which, like so many others in this thread, is a sputtering, semicoherent string of nonsequiturs and bizarre, irrelevant claims. outrage is cheap, insight is harder to come by. we get that you're outraged...what else ya got?

          pornographic spam, which every single email user gets every single day, makes you feel "absolutely assaulted"? just as you feel "assaulted by this website"? good lord, get a grip. it's only a website. god help you if you ever have to endure a real assault, metaphoric or literal.

          "Patriot: he who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about." -Mark Twain

          by buffalobreath on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:26:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Where do I get that? (none)
            Watching documentaries, reading articles, etc, on the porn industry. And, no, not the ones generated by wingers and religious nuts, just straight up news -- much of it based on interviews with the women themselves. I hate to break it to you, but it's a running theme. And, not for nothin.' How do you know I haven't been sexually assaulted? For the record, I have, more than once. So have a vast number of the women I know. It's very, very common.

            But, /oh, the women are talking and it's all sputtering, semicoherent noise. With their feelings and hysteria./How predictable. What else have you got?

            "I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or prostitute." ~ Rebecca West

            by Recordkeeper on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:00:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i'll ask again (none)
              what's your source? surely out of all that "straight up news" you can furnish one reputable link to back up your claim.

              i'm aware it's a "running theme." that doesn't make it a fact. it's also a "running theme" that same-sex marriage will lead to state sanctioned bestiality, or that biological differences account for the lack of gender balance in the sciences. you've got to do better than that.

              "Patriot: he who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about." -Mark Twain

              by buffalobreath on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:14:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't have to do better than anything. (1.50)
                This is a bulletin board, not a research paper. My statement was based on anecdotal evidence, and you can accept or reject it, at your whim. It's not a fun thing to run google searches on because it brings up a lot of sites selling sex abuse and rape videos. I've been skeeved out enough for one day, thank-you very much. If you want to research it, I believe one of the documentaries was a PBS series. There was also a "Dateline" I believe. Here's a few from my husband's memory, who is the reigning authority on, and consumer of pornography, in our house: Linda Lovelace, Jenna Jameson, Traci Lords... sexually abused and also incurred abuse when they were in the industry. From my memory, Marilyn Monroe was abused in her early teens. Pamela Anderson says she was molested.

                And, please understand, I'm not criticizing these women, or their choices. I think they may well find it a therapeutic outlet. Jenna Jameson said in a CNN interview that she wasn't sure if there was a connection between her sexual abuse and her career in porn, but that she found her work satisfying and it brought her joy. Good on her. But, I do think a lot of these women exercising their demons.

                "I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or prostitute." ~ Rebecca West

                by Recordkeeper on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:59:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  IOW, you concede that your claim was specious (none)
                  ...but you stand by it anyway. fair enough.

                  you're right of course -- no, you're under no obligation to substantiate any hyperbolic, made-up assertions you care to make, though with this attitude you'd be laughed out of any serious college-level class. including women's studies.

                  likewise, since you've just declared your total contempt for the most basic principles of reasoned argumentation, nobody who reads your comments is under any obligation to take you the least bit seriously. and naturally you're free to chalk that up to the poisonous dKos culture of woman-hating patriarchy you're so determined to to see if it makes you feel better.

                  that said, of course there are women in porn who've been abused -- it would be one hell of a statistical anomaly if there weren't, given that something like 1 in 3 of all women will experience some form of sexual abuse in their lives. one would expect to find similar rates among schoolteachers, doctors, bus drivers, zookeepers, etc. the fact that a few female porn stars can say the same is totally unsurprising, and has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of your original claim, which was that "the majority of women who work in pornography are rape and incest survivors."

                  "Patriot: he who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about." -Mark Twain

                  by buffalobreath on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 07:06:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Just one of many studies (4.00)
                http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/ProsViolPosttrauStress.html

                (I guess those women's studies types have to do something with their time).

                •  that's very interesting (none)
                  thanks for the link.

                  i read over the article, but i can't find anywhere where it addresses the incidence of sexual abuse among workers in the pornography industry, which if you'll look upthread a little you'll see is the question we're discussing. i'll assume you're not trying to conflate porn with prostitution.

                  "Patriot: he who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about." -Mark Twain

                  by buffalobreath on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 07:37:11 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I'll be a source... (3.66)
                ....as someone who worked on and off at Playboy TV for a few years a few years back. MANY of the girls there were victims as she suggests.

                But I would also point out that i have been o fht eopinion that nearly half the women in this country probably fit that description. 20-30% of the women I've known in my life have admitted to past abuse on them, and that's just the ones who told me - how many haven't?

                All that leads to a larger problem, but I digress.

                •  no doubt (none)
                  my own experiences have led me to similar conclusions. i don't doubt that there are porn workers out there who have suffered sexual abuse. but, as you say, the problem is so widespread that it would be extremely surprising were it otherwise.

                  my original quibble was with the bald assertion that "the majority" of women in porn were raped or abused, which, apart from being factually wrong, was being thrown about as if it had some bearing on the question of whether kos is an evil misogynist for posting a racy ad and then failing to be contrite about it. i'm still waiting for somebody to explain why this was a worthwhile line of discussion and not just an irrelevant, bile-spewing rant, but so far nobody's bothered to substantiate any of the original claims or validate their use in the discussion. you're the first to actually address any of my questions -- thanks!

                  "Patriot: he who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about." -Mark Twain

                  by buffalobreath on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:03:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  If your post (3.33)
        doesn't convince people, nothing will.  They're liberals concerned with fighting media-induced perceptions only until they get to women and fatsos.
      •  Kos, please use your "women's studies" (3.66)
        mistake as an opportunity to consider the Democratic Party's continuing failure to promote, advocate for and incorporate ideas of women generally.  I don't think "Duly noted" cuts it.

        My two cents on the ad itself -- taking Time Warner's money to promote a Gilligan's Island remake that, in turn, exposes your own underdeveloped attitudes on women and power in this country will cost you much more than you gain IF your reflection stops at "duly noted".

        Charging people offended by the ad with "Dobsonism" is also narrow-minded.  The site, frankly, could use a great deal more sexually related content.

        The problem with the ad, of course, is the objectification of women for profit by a right-leaning mega-conglomerate run predominantly by men.  Funding the site with this kind of coin is going to alienate a lot of people and narrow the range of ideas that makes the site great.

      •  "abortion rights, for example" ? (none)
        for example?! that's your only example!

        stop pretend that a single issue important to you equals all human rights for all women.

        i agree that the ad is offensive enough to enough people to be removed. i don't agree with you about a pattern of misogyny. i don't have any idea where you get that from - i've never seen any poster intentionally show disrespect for women - not once.

        "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity" -Yeats

        by jethropalerobber on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 11:28:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I support you, Shadowthief... (3.50)
        ...at least in your observation that the objectification of women is the problem with the ad, and your complaints about how Kos handled this controversy.  By the way, I am offended by those who have suggested that any woman who objected to this ad must be essentially sexless.  Sorry, you've got that stereotype all wrong.  I, for one, work hard to stay attractive and I'm very comfortable with my own sexuality and that of others, thank you very much.  As shadowthief notes, sexuality is not the problem.  Objectification is.  
    •  Pornography on DKos? (2.63)
      What about full-on pornography?  Quit fucking around with this soft-core porn and get real, Markos--the hard-core porn advertisers will back a truckload of money to your door.  I mean, you're not the gatekeeper of popular culture, and hard-core porn is a multibillion dollar business in the United States!  Let's see full-frontal nudity--yes, that's right, the Full Monty. Don't worry about political correctness--that's for whiny crybaby liberal types who don't have the guts to, er, insult the people who provide tonnes and tonnes of free content for your website.

      There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

      by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:44:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You really are a bit of a buffoon arent you (2.09)
        You see sexuality as an assault on women. You see any collection of human beings which isnt exactly half women as being sexist. You see anyone who doesnt think the way you wish them to as.. sexist.
        Please go take your medication. Your hysteria is showing. And yes.. that word was chosen purposefully.. regardless of whatever your sex is. Or is saying the sex word sexist and evil now?

        The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

        by cdreid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:53:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You seem to know an awful lot about me (3.25)
          For somebody who doesn't even know whether I'm male or female.

          Why not trying click on my user name and you'll find all you need to now.

          Oh, and you're a nobby wanker.  Look that one up in your Britspeak dictionary.

          There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

          by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:07:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Where's Brent Bozell? (none)
      This whole thing reminds me in some ways of the Monday Night Football incident with Nicolette Sheridan.  

      Where's the Parents Television Council's post weighing in on Piegate?

      "Over time your quickness with a cocky rejoinder must have gotten you many punches in the face." --Al Swearengen

      by RepublicanTaliban on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:21:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Filk repost... (4.00)
    So this is the tale of the blogosphere,
    we're here for a long, long time.
    We'll have to make the best of things,
    it's an uphill climb.

    Our Markos and his ct too,
    will do their very best,
    to make the others comfortable,
    despite ads from TBS.

    No hate, no vice, no winking twice,
    to stay innuendo free.
    Like Lieberman's stump speeches,
    it's sterile as can be.

    So join us here each day my friend,
    you're sure to get quite riled.
    From media conglomorates,
    In top Diary style!

  •  Amen Kos (3.50)
    Perfect response.  

    Right down the very last point.

  •  I think it is "bosoms" (3.14)
    just for the record.

    JUST a bit outside......

    by BlueGoo on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:05:19 PM PDT

  •  Damnit Kos. (2.88)
    You patriarchical insensitive pig! You rock!
    •  I think some people (none)
      Missed the joke.

      Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

      by Goldfish on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:39:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Damn straight (3.37)
      Once we get those women barefoot, pregnant, and back into the kitchen, let's get blacks back into the cotton fields where they belong.  

      Oh, man, the white patriarchy is so cool! Why did we EVER think it would be a good idea to let non-whites and women (and let's not forget non-Christians!) think they were the EQUAL of white male Christians?  

      Since you're too thick to realise this is sarcasm, allow me to say this:  it's sarcasm.

      I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find the difference between Democrats and Republicans.  Which one are you lot?  Am I on Free Republic or Daily Kos?

      There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

      by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:17:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's hott! (4.00)
    I asked my roomate who, amongst other things, is a lesbian, what she thought of the ad.

    Her response: "Wow, that's really hot.  When is the show on?"

    Of course, she also likes the Paris Hilton ad for Carl Jr.'s, so there is no accounting for taste.  (I happen to like the Paris ad too, but only because I find it completely hilarious.)

    Politics is so much better when there's sex. - Louis XIV

    by goblue72 on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:07:16 PM PDT

  •  Response (4.00)
    Well,

    I'm a little bummed.  After seeing this post, I figured that the ad would be something juicy.  So I go over there and check it out.  It looked like a humorous spoof on the beer commercial where the two women were wrestling each other in bikinis.  I am not sure what the fuss is all about.  Especially given all the other things going on right now.

    •  spoof (none)
      I'll admit. I didn't watch it yet, but if it is a spoof of advertisers using sex to sell, you need to cut them some slack. There's a difference between a self-aware spoof of a sexist or racist stereotype and the stereotype itself. I know. I'm Asian. When Krusty the Klown donned buckteeth and did a bad Chinese accent on the Simpsons and the studio audience reacted with dropped jaws, that's a spoof. That's different from an old movie from the 50s that really stereotypes Asians.

      This is a separate issue from whether racist and sexist stereotypes are equivalent. My 2 cents. Whether or not it leads to oppressive power structures (it doesn't in all cultures), sexual attraction is a natural part of being human. You can't deny it. Racism may have a biological component, an instinctive fear of the "different", but its role is tiny compared to cultural programming.

  •  Wow, and I have all nite (3.00)
    Way to kick the hornet's nest Kos. This should be good.

    Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving: it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.--Thomas Paine

    by peterborocanuck on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:07:20 PM PDT

  •  thats (none)
    pretty ironic. Or maybe just a lot of male kossacks watching the video, not like I did!
  •  I gotta admit (3.40)
    I clicked on that ad.

    Santa's been a bad boy.

  •  Every thing I need to know (4.00)
    I learned from the simpsons.

    To stop those monsters 1-2-3
    Here's a fresh new way that's trouble free
    It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...

    Guarantee void in Tennessee!

    Just don't look!
    Just don't look!
    Just don't look!
    Just don't look!

  •  asdf (2.80)
    And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site.

    Kos, brother, it took real guts to say this. You da man.

    •  Yup, Patriarchy is in BIG Trouble These Days (3.87)
      Good to see folks taking the oh-so-unpopular position that sanctimonious Feminazis are ruining our culture.

      While you're at it, kos, you might want to complain about the ill-effect that feminist-oriented special interest groups like NARAL have on politics and the Democratic Party.

      Oh wait...you already have!

      </snark>

      •  Jesus Christ. (3.84)
        Most.
        Callous.
        Ignorant.
        Post.
        From.
        Kos.
        Ever.
        And a lot of hee haw replies are no better.

        Me, I'll focus on the important shit.

        Yeah. Maybe you should do that.
        Focus on the important shit like the fact that Democrat's support with women dropped more than enough so they keep losing elections.

        I could give a shit about the advertisement, though perhaps if I saw it I would find it tasteless and demeaning - I doubt, (no, I know) I wouldn't say anything knowing this site needs to bring in money.
        But it's something I'd expect from conservatives assholes who use the names Sooner referenced above - FemiNazis.

        Anyway, I wonder if I was African American and you took in an advertisement of mock slaves throwing cotten balls at each other and waving the confederate flag - I just wonder if the "sanctimonious minority studies group" got offended -
        if that would also prompt such an pompous post from you.
        Substitute gay and/or anyone else in there.
        I doubt we would have seen this.

        Did anyone figure out what the hell that studies group comment actually means?

        This after the other diary ripping into NARAL over and over and over and over...not to mention slams against NOW.
        This is the rancid icing on the moldy old cake.

        It takes a hell of a lot to get me offended.
        The advertisement is child's play compared to this crap.

        Man. I admire you greatly Markos.
        For your convictions about so many things.
        Politics and other things.
        Not tonight.
        And not for a long long long long while.
        It was a little peak into how you feel about something, that, as a woman, matters a great deal to me.
        When you have a daughter you might get it.
        Then again, you're married and you don't.

        Christine

        •  Behold, the straw man (2.66)
          Bow before his power.

          I wonder if I was African American and you took in an advertisement of mock slaves throwing cotten balls at each other

          •  You still don't get it. (3.40)
            If you think using that as an example is a weak or sham argument that I set up to be easily refuted - you are exactly what I'm talking about.

            Try again.

            •  OK (3.00)
              Try again.

              Comparing an advertisement displaying women in a sexual setting to racism is a silly straw man argument.  Sexuality is normal and natural and something to be embraced, not to be condemned.  I enjoy looking at hot women in skimpy (or no) clothing, and I am not ashamed.  I am, however, a little embarrassed by a certain small segment of my fellow liberals who wet themselves with outrage whenever they see such things.

              •  comparing (4.00)
                a  corporate profit-driven sexually manipulative ad to "normal and natural sexuality" between real people is a a silly straw man argument. My sexuality is for me, it is not for Coors, ABC TV, Calvin Klein etc to make huge amount of money off of.

                Is it okay with you that your sex-drive is being used for another's profit?

              •  FIne. (4.00)
                At least you spoke in complete sentences this time.
                It was an extreme example.
                In hindsite, I wish I had used something different.
                And I'm sorry if it offended anyone.
                I was not comparing the two ads, but asking if a group was offended by something that is obviously senstitive, would Kos have reacted that callously.
                But I think you knew that and just wanted to talk about how carefree you are about sex.

                You don't have to agree with my reaction.
                Like I said - you so obviously don't get how women can be offended by not only the ad, but but by Markos's response.
                The ad was not "art".
                And you're being utterly ridiculous trying to imply that if you're offended by the add or Marko's response, you're an uptight puritan who doesn't enjoy sex.
                What the hell?
                I'm offended by Hustler and the defunct(?) Screw magazines.  
                According to you, I condemn sex because they offend me?
                How lame.

                And where the hell did did I say you should be ashamed? Reach much?
                But who gives a shit about that - again,  that was not the point of my post.
                So stop "dissasembling".

                "I am, however, a little embarrassed by a certain small segment of my fellow liberals who wet themselves with outrage whenever they see such things."

                Ahhhhh..now it makes sense.
                Echo Chamber.
                Perfect.
                I know.
                You're embarrassed by that "santimonious women's studies group".
                Quite frankly.
                You don't make me too proud either.
                I'll leave the ratings out of it though.

                Hey. Maybe you can bookmark that ad.
                Embrace some more of your sexuality while I go defrost.

                Christine

            •  comparing this ad to a (3.40)
              joking representation of slavery is demeaning and harmful to the cause of the promotion of women's rights.  this ad has nothing in common with such an example.
        •  asdf (3.80)
          "Focus on the important shit like the fact that Democrat's support with women dropped more than enough so they keep losing elections."

          We're not losing votes (maybe after tonight we will) from the Women's Studies set, we're losing votes from suburban/rural women who don't give a shit about women's studies.

          •  What do you know about women's studies? (none)
            I'd bet nothing from a comment like this.

            You think the reason we're losing votes from women is for a reason other than that we fail to address the concerns of ordinary women in this country?  

            If you think suburban/rural women don't care about issues that are studied in women's studies, then clearly you know NOTHING about what is studied in women's studies programs other than caricatures promulgated by ignoramuses who are threatened by the study of women.

    •  Guts (3.80)
      I'm curious, In what way is it gutsy for the owner of the site  -- who of course can kick anyone off whenever he feels like it -- to single out a large segment of the community for his contempt?
      •  Because (4.00)
        Whether you agree with him or disagree with him, he's certain to take a lot of shit for saying so. It's gutsy and honorable to continue to honor their right to speak freely and loudly, and yet just as loudly disagree with them.

        What wouldn't be gutsy would be to silently ban all of those members that he doesn't agree with, and not address the issue at all--that would be cowardly. It would also be cowardly to cave in to pressure solely because popular opinion dictates that you do so.

        Are there other honorable ways to deal with this? Sure. Less inflammatory ones? No doubt. But I don't see how you wouldn't see that it's gutsy to post something that could very well piss off a lot of people. Especially when your blog depends on reputation and ad revenue.

        As for contempt, I don't necessarily see that; more like a lack of tact, IMO. However, look in the Pie Fight diary--if there is contempt here, then apparently the feeling is mutual.

        •  Brave and ignorant (3.00)
          I suppose it would be ok with you if he bashed those complaining about an ad that stereotyped jews?

          Hillary. Wrong on the issues. Wrong elitist image. Wrong for Democrats. Brian Schweitzer 2008

          by Joe B on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:33:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pardon me? (4.00)
            Did you miss the first line of my comment: "Whether you agree with him or disagree with him"? The topic of his remarks is truly separate from how gutsy it is for him to disagree with it. Therefore, it has nothing to do with it being 'ok with me'.

            Now, continuing on. Do you think the two situations would be analogous? Also, 'I suppose it would be ok with you' to make veiled and unfounded allegations of anti-Semitism against people you don't know and obviously don't bother to understand through bullshit hypothetical situations that don't even apply? Or maybe you just can't read? Is it willful malice on your part, or just ignorance--inquiring minds want to know.

    •  Sanctimonious yes (4.00)
      "women's studies crowd?" Not a way to build bridges.
  •  HahahAHahhaha (4.00)
    p.s. And congratulations -- the more people have bitched about the ad, the more successful it has become. It is now the most successful ad in the history of this site, with close to 8,000 click throughs over the low-traffic weekend. And, now that you have demanded I respond to the ad, thousands more will click through to see what the big deal is all about.
    HAAHHAAHahahaaa! No matter where you stood on the ad politically this development is hilarious. We apparently never learned anything from the social conservative right. Lesson learned? I hope.

    Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

    by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:08:14 PM PDT

  •  I have never agreed with you more, Kos. n/t (3.10)
    •  Oh yeah? (3.00)
      that says something about your priorities. It's more important to bash womens liberation movement than the GOP or whatever else?

      Of course you're not a woman. So you do not care. But fyi: not everyone is happy about sexist stereotyping and exploitation. This ad says "women are supposed to be large breasted, stupid (in a kinda cute way), naughty but still innocent and always available for the pleasure of man"

      Hillary. Wrong on the issues. Wrong elitist image. Wrong for Democrats. Brian Schweitzer 2008

      by Joe B on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:42:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obviously, the women's movement has more work (4.00)
        to do, when people like you assume I am a man just because I'm a lawyer.  Way to strike a blow for the women's movement, Joe!  

        In fact, I am a woman, and I find that an ad like this has no impact whatsoever on my self-esteem or accomplishments.  If we had the whole world peace thing solved, or the budget balanced, or slavery ended, or a war in Iraq won, or had mastered the party spin like the Repubs have, or had ensured that all Americans would have good educations and health care, then I might care more about an ad with women wrestling over a pie.

        Heck, add to that list, "if we had ensured by the year 2005 that people did not assume only men could be lawyers."

        I think you get the idea, Joe . . .

        •  After reading all of the mess (none)
           in this thread, this "moment" still remains my favorite. The stereotypes have been coming hot and heavy from every angle, every opinion, every side in this mind-bogglingly petty debate, but this just made me laugh at how much you put that guy in his place. He really just became the "when you assume..." object lesson.

          Anyway - good post.

        •  This is the best comment posted so far (none)
          At least somebody can put this whole flare up in its proper context.
        •  unfair (none)
          I don't think he made the assumption based solely on the fact that you have lawyer in your name.  I think he made it because of your support of kos' message.  

          Or are you being purposely obtuse to score your point?

          They run this show, sure, run it into the ground -- Modest Mouse

          by ALO on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:21:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How could he possibly assume (none)
            I am a man just because I agree with Kos?  A plethora of women have posted on this topic in this thread and others, with many agreeing with Kos' position.  

            To answer your question, though, no, I'm not trying to be obtuse.  Ever since I have been posting on this board, people have assumed I am a man.  When I pointed out that they were assuming incorrectly, many conceded it is because of the moniker, with only a few saying it wasn't the tag but the forceful way in which I state my opinion.  Either way, this assumption that I am a man makes me laugh out loud at people trying to lecture me, a person who has spent many years in the legal profession in Texas, on sexist stereotypes.

    •  Why am I not surprised n/t (none)
  •  OK (4.00)
    Thanks for all your hard work.

    I'll catch you guys at the election booth.

  •  I thought it was funny (3.57)
    Yes, I actually clicked on the ad and watched the video clip.  I have never and probably will never watch the reality show in question. I hate reality shows in general. But I was intrigued, and clicked.  I think I watched the director's cut first. It was a bit raunchy, but totally overdone in the spirit of slapstick everywhere.  Those women were hardly being exploited. They were probably paid very well for their efforts and were thrilled at the opportunity.

    I'm not a big fan of beauty contests and such. I think that it's ridiculous to judge women soley on looks. But this isn't a beauty contest. It's a couple of actresses playing a role for money. They are hardly being exploited.  

    •  Exploitation (4.00)
      Those women were hardly being exploited. They were probably paid very well for their efforts and were thrilled at the opportunity.

      I don't think that people are objecting because they think these women were inadequately compensated.  Instead, they're objecting because of the message the ads send to the public.  Assume, solely for the sake of argument here, that these ads are as bad as racist depictions of blacks fighting each other.  You wouldn't say in response to the racist ad: "well, the actors were paid well, so it's all okay."  I don't have time right now to get into the messy discussion of whether the ads were sexist and to what degree.  I just want to point out that the salaries of models and actresses have very little to do with the discussion.

      •  It's not the same (none)
        This isn't showing women being subjugated. We're not taking about filming women being abused physically or emotionally, being impoverished, being told they can't work at certain jobs.  I would think a commercial was tasteless if it trying to portray women being hit by a man. But this is just a couple of women fighting.  Where is the subjugation?  Racial comparison's don't always work.  So, 1) the women weren't hurt in any way and 2) the commercial doesn't show women as weak or helpless.  There just isn't anything to complain about here.  Since when did women fighting each other become sexist?  
        •  Again (none)
          I think you are defining things way too narrowly, if you think that only a commercial showing women being beaten or deprived of a job can be sexist.  A minstrel show would not necessarily depict blacks being beaten or deprived of a job.  But it might portray them as idiots, prancing around in a manner intended to be amusing to white audiences.  And I think here's an argument that something similar is happening in the commercial--two scantily-clad women behaving in a stupid and catty manner, while providing voyeuristic entertainment to the men who ogle them through binoculars.

          To some extent, I agree with Kos that this ad is not worth the energy that has been spent on it.  But I think that you're being too dismissive of people's objections.

  •  kos (3.97)
    And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site. Feel free to be offended. Feel free to claim that I'm somehow abandoning "progressive principles" by running the ad. It's a free country. Feel free to storm off in a huff. Other deserving bloggers could use the patronage.

    Loud and clear, kos. Loud and clear.

    If you wanted to defend that ad, couldn't you have done it in a more diplomatic manner or is that just too much to ask? Obviously, it is, so you decided to slam everyone who had a problem with it by naming them as the "sanctimonious women's set". Your comments offend me more than that ad does. If that's how you truly feel about those of us who believe in standing up for women's rights, like I said - I got your message loud and clear.

    "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

    by catnip on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:10:07 PM PDT

    •  Me, diplomatic? (2.32)
      When has that ever happened?

      Don't nominate me to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

      •  do you realize (3.93)
        ...how many kossacks you've just insulted? Doesn't that matter to you?

        "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

        by catnip on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:18:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Motive (2.50)
          Haha. Not with his bandwidth bills, the more Kossacks driven away the bigger the new pool! Hi-yo!

          Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

          by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:20:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  fine (4.00)
            Count me as one that's been driven away.

            "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

            by catnip on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:21:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  I think you and catnip both missed the point... (3.25)
                ...I mean feel free to be offended by both the ad and kos' response.  But while you're there cutting off your noses, keep in mind his parting comment:

                I'll focus on the important shit.

                WE should all be so calm and focused.  There are many things in life that we can take exception to from friends and neighbors.  As well, we can be easily guided off track by those that we seek to defeat.  Think about the current debate about whether or not Biden and Edwards should be sniping at Dean for his comments...do you think that for a minute that Rove isn't slapping himself silly on the back?  I'll focus on the important shit.  No, we should all be focusing on the important shit until we take care of it and the less important shit can then fill the void.

                If you still feel the need to walk away, so be it.  We'll carry on without you.

                He who gives up liberty in exchange for security is deserving of neither

                by joby on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:46:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Talk about sanctimonious... (4.00)
                  "Me Big Man, me focus on important shit."  
                  He has the gall to sling around "sanctimonious" as he lectures others on what's important?  As he takes a cheap shot at women's studies, then scratches it out with a faux apology, then uses the smug gimmick of leaving the scratch visible as big fuck-you to everyone who objected?  

                  Count me as one who didn't pay much attention to Pie Fight, but finds the holier-than-thou lecturing and back-handed excuses a real eye-opener.    

                  Yeah, this is for you, Kos:  If you're doing an impersonation of a pissy, juvenile prick congrats.  You nailed it.    

                  •  I have nothing to add (4.00)
                    Except "thank you", Kathleen.

                    You summarised the entire tone perfectly--yes, quite eye-opening.

                    I think that the site's proprietor will--if he casts a glance into the lower right-hand corner of the opening page--find a list of other blogs where folk can go.  And they will, if they continue to be insulted in this high-handed manner.

                    And while all of these sites may be associated with Kos, they do not all reflect his attitude.

                    Inviting people to leave your website is a wonderful idea when you have tonnes of people providing free content for it.

                    Inviting people to leave your website may not seem such a good idea in a year or two when page views are down, advertisers are complaining about blogad rates compared to number of people reached by those ads, and you find that other websites are rivalling yours in popularity, thereby diminishing the importance of DailyKos.

                    Ah, well, like Cassandra, I am certain my prophecy will go unheeded--but then again, Cassandra was a woman, and what do those pesky females know?

                    There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

                    by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:24:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  err... (none)
                    We can't go back and erase what we've said in the real world. Using strikethrough is the online representation of this fact.
            •  Snap (4.00)
              I don't think so... Get that thought right outta your head Catnip (and every other woman contemplating a hasty exit too).

              Kos could have put more effort into being polite about his position on this ad. That's probably true. I mean, c'mon, "the women's studies set"? He didn't put a lot of thought into that, that's pretty clear.  'Nuff said.

              But it's fairly rare for Kos to pop off at the keyboard and backhand a whole bunch of people he doesn't really have antipathy for, at least as far as I've been able to detect over the past few years of near-daily visits.

              Sex, even a visual suggestion of just-may-be-possible sex is pretty compelling stuff for most people - straight, gay, and everything in between.  We all know that's a given and I'm not sure that I'd change that even if I could. So, even if Kos just has a thing about sticky boobs and pigtails, he can't exactly be singled out as a neanderthal behind it. But his salient point, namely that this site is geared into helping Democrats gain electoral strength - as he's often said, is a valid one regardless of how he served it up tonight.

              Big-breasted women tossing creme pies at each other in any context is an issue that's best relegated to the back burner of discussion in this joint.  Now, women making seventy-five cents to any man's dollar, that's a front burner problem that this community's prepared to tackle. Women losing their privacy and autonomy as individuals before our government's power, that's a big problem that this community cares about and wants to fix (for the most part).  Single women in need of childcare alternatives, etc., etc., etc.

              As for the occasional coarse attitude about images of women that depict us as mindless fools, well, we're entitled to find those images counterproductive to our equality. And in some pretty fundamental ways, they certainly can be. But we've got to prioritize our fights as women, using a flawed party in a flawed society, to achieve our end goal of true equality.

              As far as this woman's concerned, we need all of our most passionate and productive fighters (women and men) to hold their positions at the front, occasional black eyes from awkward allied hands be damned.  Because there's much bigger trouble brewing for all of us just over the horizon. And we all, women and men, of almost every race and creed, will need each other sorely when that troubles comes at us like a runaway freighttrain.

              We need to stay focused and utilize our minority strength as Democrats wisely now - together. As a female Democrat, I have precisely zero intention of giving up a single inch of ground for myself or any other Democrat but I won't waste my energy on peripheral skirmishes either.

              I hope every other Democrat (and sympathetic Canadians, as the case may be) regardless of gender will stay engaged and use this site's potential to our advantage with me.

              •  I don't agree Kimberly (4.00)
                You wrote:  "As far as this woman's concerned, we need all of our most passionate and productive fighters (women and men) to hold their positions at the front, occasional black eyes from awkward allied hands be damned.  Because there's much bigger trouble brewing for all of us just over the horizon. And we all, women and men, of almost every race and creed, will need each other sorely when that troubles comes at us like a runaway freight train."

                You are assuming that people must remain at DailyKos to "hold their postions at the front".

                Actually, there are plenty of liberal blogs from which to choose--at this point, none of them are as popular as DailyKos.  However, if Markos continues to insist that people leave, he may find that situation much changed in a remarkably short span of time.  Look at the lower right-hand corner of this screen and you will see a partial list of some of the liberal blogs--none of them controlled by Markos, although they are linked to his site.  Catnip, KathleenM1, and others who are offended can easily go there and continue to share their thoughts with others.  Markos doesn't have a monopoly in any sense for political discussion on the web.

                What's more, while blogging is certainly part of being politically involved, I would say that actively supporting the ACLU, or organising for a particular candidate, is a very important way of being on the "front lines".

                In other words, I disagree with your premise that departing DailyKos constitutes a "retreat" from the "front lines"--but the metaphor of being given a "black eye" is quite appropriate, because that's what Markos has done.

                There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

                by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:32:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Oh come off it. (2.33)
          If that's all it takes to offend them then they need to build up some serious psychic shields.

          Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge. -Homer J. Simpson

          by Cheez Whiz on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:24:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I assume that's a rhetorical question (4.00)
          Don't you already know the answer, Catnip?  This is part of one long pattern of big "fuck you's" to women on this site, and men who are concerned with women's issues.  Of course, calling them "women's issues" is a misnomer, because these issues are actually human issues.

          There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

          by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:58:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You would be better (none)
        than John Bolton!
      •  and... (3.91)
        You say you'll move on to "important shit". Well, FYI, those of us involved in the women's movement for decades believe that we also stand for "important shit" - very important shit, for that matter.

        "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

        by catnip on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:19:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What's up with the ad? (none)
          Why does it offend? I have not seen it.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:23:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't Ask... (none)
            Sheesh. Go watch the video and decide for yourself.

            The link is on the right of the screen under the word pie. The one with two buxom women covered in whipped cream standing face-to-face.

            •  Actually (4.00)
              I prefer to ask.

              It helps clarify what is offensive.

              Unless you are saying the whole thing is offensive.

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:44:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  cheesecake. (none)
                Some very concerned people take exception with cheescake.

                And they apparently feel that it has no place on such a 'serious' blog.  I won't make any judgements for or against those who take exception to the ad as I can see reasoning for all sides in this particular conflagration.

                I just think that calling senators about the pending Bolton confirmation would be a better use of time and energy.  But no, we have to debate cheesecake.

                Yes, yes, I know that objectification of women is in poor taste and running the ad is tacit approval of such.  But keep in mind that it also can be construed as a first amendment right to free speech.  And kos wouldn't want to be known for abridging that, right?

                Right?

                He who gives up liberty in exchange for security is deserving of neither

                by joby on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:54:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The ad itself is mildly offensive and tawdry. (4.00)
                Unless you are saying the whole thing is offensive.

                 But the responses and multiple threads to those who have been pointing this out have been most illuminating, frequently vicious and deeply offensive.
                I have, btw, never taken a womens studies course in my life. When I attended university I had neither the time or the money to do more than focus on work which would allow me to make a decent living. When I politic about women's issues in the US I concentrate on this sort of thing and these things are likewise dismissed and treated with contempt here.
                I hope Chris Bowers (who wants to know why more women don't blog) reads this thread. It should be provide all the evidence he needs.

                "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

                by colleen on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:16:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  its not offensive (3.25)
            offensive, why can't people reserve that word for things which are threatening or harmful?  the ad is softcore erotica, and mary ann has a nice ass.  

            and both her and ginger should be able to get the morning after pill over the counter when they need it.  

            if this add genuinely offends someone, they have a low threshhold for being offended.

            •  if people feel offended (4.00)
              then it is offensive, to them at least. It's not anyone's place to tell others what should or should not offend them.

              "What in the wide, wide world of sports is a-goin' on here?" -- Slim Pickens in "Blazing Saddles";
              "I have more than 2 problems." - the Coach Z

              by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:37:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  That ad ain't important shit. (4.00)
          It just ain't.

          Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge. -Homer J. Simpson

          by Cheez Whiz on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:24:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  this is why (4.00)
          this is why the repubs are in power...and why it will remain so...

          Just remember...people are always more important than ideas.

          by circuithead on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:25:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Precisely (4.00)
            Liberals get in a huff over pie ads.

            Now why oh why does middle America think of us as weak little pansies? Gee, I have NO idea...

            •  No need to recite GOP talking points here (4.00)
              Ever been to a PTA meeting?  Or God forbid, a meeting of your neighborhood association or church group?  College student groups?  I have, and long ago realized that any aggregate association of human beings charged with planning an agenda will bicker 9 times out of 10.  Liberals are doing damned well given our diversity of opinions and beliefs to not have huge carnivals of bickering every day.

              This is called human nature.  People get into huffs and fights all the time, irrespective of ideology.  And Markos made an extremely offensive remark ("women's studies set").  Call this thread petty if you so choose, but don't denigrate the liberal movement to do so.

              It ain't really what you'd call change. It's all happened before and it'll happen again with a different set of facts. -Gloria Naylor

              by GN1927 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:09:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  wrong (none)
              while the ad doesn't bother me... Republicans get upset overy Sponge Bob and every other tiny slight in the world.

              It's just as likely that the reason the republicans are in control, regarding this sort of issue, is they don't go attacking Rev. Dobson for being an idiot, but use that passion for their own purposes.

              We see a fight and call one out!  Controversy!

              hmmm.

        •  perhaps we live in different universes (3.70)
          But where I live, the real women's movement, that has fought and achieved significant gains over the last 200 years, was made up of people who live in the real world, and has little relation to the ivory-tower world of women's studies, which lives in some sort of postmodernist world of mumbo-jumbo, where arguing that E=mc^2 is sexist ("because it privileges the speed of light above other speeds vitally important to us", as noted feminist Luce Irigaray argues) is considered legitimate "research".

          "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

          by Delirium on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:24:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I find this claim unbelievable (4.00)
            so I did what I usually do with unbelievable claims.

            Here's the quote:

            Is e=mc2 a sexed equation?...Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest...
            Luce Irigaray
               --Le sujet de la science est-il sexue?

            kos's comment set this field back 15 years?

            We all go a little mad sometimes - Norman Bates

            by badger on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:47:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  err, and? (4.00)
              So you quoted the full ridiculous quote in context, in which it's still quite ridiculous.  What point does that prove?

              "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

              by Delirium on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:20:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's it's an accurate (4.00)
                statement and completely ridiculous quote.

                We all go a little mad sometimes - Norman Bates

                by badger on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:52:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  oh ok; misread (none)
                  Sorry, I thought you were trying to claim that I had quoted it out of context or something.  Never mind. =]

                  "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

                  by Delirium on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:47:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No problem (none)
                    It was a stupid way to put it. I was actually slightly skeptical at first. It's so bizarre as to actually look like a phony Limbaugh-type claim.

                    I'd hate to see what she'd have to say about the permeability and permittivity of free space, or what conclusions she'd draw from the fact that connectors and pipe fittings can be male, female or even hermaphroditic.

                    We all go a little mad sometimes - Norman Bates

                    by badger on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:02:31 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  well, here's one more for amusement (none)
                      I don't know what she had to say about the permeability and permittivity of free space, but she did have some opinions on rigid-body versus fluid mechanics.  I don't have a quote handy, but she basically argues that the theory of fluid mechanics is not as well developed because science is male-dominated, and males can't deal with fluid flow and fluidity in general, which are feminine traits.  This is evident, she says, when we look at sex organs: men have sex organs that become rigid, while women have openings that produce fluid.

                      It really is quite baffling that people like this are well-respected.  Hopefully that's slowly starting to chip away, as people realize that the emperor has no clothes.  The hoax a few years ago where Alan Sokal, a physicist, submitted a completely bullshit essay to a postmodernist journal and got it published, probably did a bit to help that along.

                      If you want some more amusement, Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's book Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science has quite a few more hilarious examples.  (Although it's mostly irrelevant, it might be worth noting that Sokal himself is a longstanding leftist activist, so it's not as if this is some right-winger trying to attack "liberal academics" either.)

                      "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

                      by Delirium on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:11:13 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Watch ads are sexist. (4.00)
            Womens' Studies is part of the English program at OU.  The WS TA's often teach lower div English classes.
            I get an assignment in an English class at OU to write about a single page glossy ad from a magazine.  What is the ad trying to convey through imagery, that kind of thing.
            Bulova watch ad, showing a well dressed man and his well dressed son with their cannondale mountain bikes, playing chess on a picnic table in a park.
            I write about how I think they want the reader to associate Bulova watches with the good life--good clothes, nice mountain bikes, the time to teach your kid chess in the park, things like that.
            I got a 'D' from the TA, because "the real meaning of the ad is that women can't tell time."

            Wounded Warrior Project Give till it hurts. They already did.

            by soonergrunt on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:50:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's nuts! (none)
              That would piss me off.
              •  It did, but what really pissed me off (4.00)
                was when I asked in office hours, for an explanation, and she said words to the effect of "I don't expect you to understand this because you're a man."
                I calmly (as much as I could be, anyway), informed her of my intent to appeal to her superior, which I did so.

                I ended up taking an admin drop on the course, and retaking it next semester.

                Wounded Warrior Project Give till it hurts. They already did.

                by soonergrunt on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:18:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Now THAT is sexist (4.00)
                  "I don't expect you to understand this because you're a man." <-- sexism.
                  •  It was an eye opener (4.00)
                    I was so pissed off that I couldn't see straight.  And later on, when I related this to my parents, my mother may have had sympathy, but well, being my mom, and not the easiest person in the world to get along with, didn't show any, except to say something along the lines of "now you know what we go through.  Deal with it."  That hurt too, but I also learned something about how much it sucks to be discriminated against and have no support, and maybe that was her intention.  I honestly can't say that it totally changed my world view.  I am still a member of that most priviledged of classes, the white male, but I caught a glimpse of it, and it really sucks.  I've had other such experiences before and since, and I hope that they've made me a better man.  I'm still working on it.

                    Wounded Warrior Project Give till it hurts. They already did.

                    by soonergrunt on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:13:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  yeah, my mom gets pissed off at that, oddly (none)
                      My mom, despite being a woman who was a science major in the 1970s, seems to more often get pissed off at the feminist crowd than I do.  She gets especially pissed off when feminist theorists in the humanities talk about what it's like to be a woman in the scientific field, since their writing makes it clear they obviously have no clue.

                      "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

                      by Delirium on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:10:44 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Well said (none)
                      have an additional 4.

                      Frodo failed. Bush has the one ring.

                      by Agent of Fortune on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:59:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  You can't be serious (none)
              But in case you are, were there any women in the ad?
              •  No, there were not (3.75)
                I didn't even know the source of the ad.  Still don't.
                I ended up appealing all the way up to the department chair, and got the paper regraded by a professor (a woman) on it's merits against the assignment.

                I got a B--formatting could've been better.

                Wounded Warrior Project Give till it hurts. They already did.

                by soonergrunt on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:09:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Good! (none)
                  I so hoped you had appealed -- and won this one.  And that's from one who has taught in the field, too.  Unless the instructions for the assignment were quite clear as to what tack to take, the grade was out of line.  And the reverse-sexist comment from the TA certainly was.

                  Some of my best students in the field are men.  

                  (Psst to other college students here: appeal if treated unfairly -- especially if we need to know that a temp, i.e., TA, can use some, um, help . . . or perhaps get assigned to another sort of class or not get rehired.  After all, this is how they are training to teach . . . or to find another occupation if unfair.  Of course, it also can bring to our attention, since most TA's are SO terrific, that the problem may be with the not-supervising prof.  Either way . . . appeal unfair treatment.  Please.:-)

                  "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                  by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:54:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Don't dismiss Luce wholesale (none)
            because she's pulled some shit out of her ass on occasion. There's also some great stuff in her writing - hence the sig.

            [and for the record I don't think the ad is sexist, I think the folks compalining about the ad are being ridiculous, and I think Kos was rude in his reply - but that's just Kos]

            "Neither falsehood nor appearance and beauty are 'foreign' to truth. They are proper to it, if not its accessories and its underside." - Luce Irigaray

            by lucid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:01:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well, as they say (none)
              Broken clock right twice a day and all that.

              Even that quote I can see as maybe interesting, but unless she broke from her traditional style, I'm guessing she didn't define any of those terms or argue for them; indeed, she'd probably dismiss calls to do so as being biased towards male logic-based philosophy or something.  For example, what does she mean here by truth, and why are falsehood, appearance, and beauty proper to it?  Is it not true that beauty is foreign to truth, in the sense that the beauty of a statement has no impact on its truth (there are ugly truths, and beautiful untruths)?

              "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

              by Delirium on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:14:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's from her book on Nietzsche (none)
                [which, though writing without any grammar whatsoever, is a great read].

                I'll take a look tonight at the section I pulled it from to give you greater context.

                "Neither falsehood nor appearance and beauty are 'foreign' to truth. They are proper to it, if not its accessories and its underside." - Luce Irigaray

                by lucid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:40:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  hmm (none)
                  Since I like Nietzsche's writing (and philosophy) quite a bit more than I like Irigaray's, I'm guessing I won't agree with her take on him. =]

                  "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

                  by Delirium on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:56:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Catnip, I could not agree with you more. (4.00)
          And I really, really hope you won't leave the site because I have learned a lot from your posts and would miss seeing you here.  I agree that the tone of Kos' post was not well thought out.  I happen to agree with what I thought was his intended point--that he does not see the ad as detrimental to women's interests and that, by engaging in censorship of ads like this, we become no better than the right-wing "morality police."  I'm not sure how you feel on that point, but I really hope you won't go so that we can continue to debate about these things with your input.
      •  I'm your man (none)
        But about this ad, what the fuck is it again?

        Women having a pie fight?

        I don't get it.

        Is this for a show? Literally I have no fucking clue about this.

        And I have been on the site alot this weekend.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:22:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You have to get out more often! (none)

          ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

          by NevDem on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:26:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  recap (none)
          over ad currently being shown on dkos. it's from gilligan's island reality show on TBS. ginger and mary anne impersonators get into a staged and halfnaked pie fight. ad is viral video being used to promote the show. big debate over its depiction of women as mere tittilation machines. many disgusted, many dismissive. big conflagration that ended in semi-coherent idiocy on both sides. kos reignited the debate -- and a larger debate about women's rights and dkos -- just now.

          Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

          by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:36:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Women's Rights and dkos? (4.00)
            Well I'll be damned.

            Look, kos used a horrible phrase here. I strongly disagree with his use.

            But I'll be damned if our commitment to women's rights is questioned.

            Where was the fucking outrage when Summers said what he did? I'll tell you where it was - directed at me for calling Summers out.

            So spare me the women's rights bullshit. I got precious little support from the women of this site in that fight.  So I don't want to even hear that bullshit.

            Let's criticize what is criticizable - kos' language here.

            But our commitment to women's rights? Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:43:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hmmm... (4.00)
              I've stayed (and am staying) pretty neutral on this whole thing, trying to mediate and/or stay out of it. So here's hoping all that vitriol -- esp. the refrain of "bullshit" -- wasn't aimed at me.

              Are you sure you got "precious little support from the women of this site in [the Summers'] fight?" I thought a lot of women DID argue the anti-Summers case with you.

              And the discussion of women's rights and dKos has mostly to do with people feeling the Kos himself, through words and actions, is actively marginalizing women. So it's not that dKos necessarily isn't committed to women's rights. Occasionally people will talk about a "larger" problem, though I have no idea how many people are pushing that, and reference it with examples such as the "Bosom synonym" margin race upthread in this post.

              Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

              by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:58:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not at you (none)
                And as I recall you defended Summers. Correctme  if I am wrong please.

                There were SOME women. But not as many as seem upset by the ad here.

                I felt a bit on a limb to be honest with you on Summers.

                I know I suffered multiple attacks and a movement to get rid of me was formed out of that.

                The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:00:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah (none)
                  Yeah, I defended Summers. I forget why, how, or to what degree. I think it was a question of semantics, of Summer's actual results vis-a-vis women and the poor at Harvard, and the fact that he was told by the organizers to be controversial and he said something stupid, and he didn't deserve to get fired for that. Surely -- if I know myself at all -- I did so in a highly-qualified way that allowed me a great deal of wiggle room. I doubt I ever defended Summers' statements outright.

                  I really thought I remembered you having a lot of support on that, men and women alike. That could just be because I was "on the other side," in whatever qualified way.

                  And the movement to get rid of you obviously wasn't too powerful or momentous, you're still here.

                  Definately, however, nowhere near as many people were enraged by Summers as by this ad. A lot of that has to do with the symbiotic relationship between the misogynists and the misandrists of this site. Oh when will they see that they love each other?!?

                  Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

                  by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:14:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Me, I don't attack Kos's commitment (none)
              to women's rights.

              I strongly attack his defense of an ad that is indefensible.  See here.

            •  exactly. (none)
              I think that is lost in the argument here.  Many of us are strongly commited to women's rights and while this particular issue has objectional merit, keep in mind that we would prefer that women have increased ability to command equal pay in the workforce and in the justice system.

              And also remember that no one held a gun to the heads of the actresses in that clip.  They got paid and I suspect rather hansomely.

              If you want to direct your anger somewhere, how about a little to the actresses that continue to portray that kind of act willingly (and professionally)?

              He who gives up liberty in exchange for security is deserving of neither

              by joby on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:03:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've decided to be Switzerland on this topic (4.00)
                and reserve most of my commentary to liberally sprinkling 4s throughout the discussion(s).

                But I do have something to say in response to this:

                If you want to direct your anger somewhere, how about a little to the actresses that continue to portray that kind of act willingly (and professionally)?

                While we're at it, maybe we should direct our anger toward all those prostitutes out there, perpetuating the stereotype of woman as sex objects?

                Actresses need to make a living, too - and unfortunately most of the good acting jobs have 45 thousand people competing for them. You want to make a living as an actor? You take evry job you can get.

                It's the ones with the money and the decision-making power and the editorial power toward whom we must direct our anger. They're the ones who need to change; not the working class women who are simply trying to survive. And trust me -- the vast majority of actors are "working class." And working at least 2 jobs, at that.

                Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

                by Maryscott OConnor on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:03:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I supported you to the wire (4.00)
              I got precious little support from the women of this site in that fight.  So I don't want to even hear that bullshit.

               on that one and continue to. Lots of us did. The folks who were particularly vicious map over nicely onto the folks who will agree with this fp post.

              I understand that you and Meteor Blades and Madman and many others do indeed support women's rights but it's undeniable that many here are actively hostile.

              "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

              by colleen on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:22:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Bullshit on you... (4.00)
              ...and kos.

              If the famed commitment to women's rights of which you spoke was so deeply held, then it definitely was NOT evidenced by kos' decision to run the pie fight ad, and was torn to shreds by his subsequent "defense," which was little more than a dig on feminists.

              Sexism is an ugly thing.

              It is particularly ugly and damaging when it is not so readily apparent, not easily discernible, below the surface.

              Accept it or not: Markos has revealed himself as just another sexist ever so ready to name his progressive bona fides and claim that he supports women, while simultaneously furthering sexism by acting as a subtle agent of patriarchy.

              All of his supporters have done the same.

              It is disgusting, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. But, of course, you won't, and the 1s and 0s will pour in.

            •  Hmm, just wondering, Armando (none)
              When you say that you got "precious little support from the women on this site," do you mean the posters whose gender identities are know to you as a matter of fact?  Otherwise, I must salute you for having cyberspace gender-discerning talents that I sorely lack!    
      •  fasdfadsf (4.00)
        Sometimes, the best way to kill something you disagree with is to ignore it.

        This is good advice.  Too bad you also did not follow it yourself.

        Can you identify for me specifically the users you are referring to   as the women's studies group?  Maybe if you narrowed it down, at least those on the list would know they had escaped your insult.  So - who's on the list?

        "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." - MLK

        by JLFinch on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:32:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  kos (4.00)
        As a feminist and a father of three young girls, I'm disappointed. Not with the ad. Didn't see. It doesn't matter. But I'm disappointed with your hostile tone in this post towards the reaction of women to that advertisment. You essentially told them to "Shut their fucking pie holes." It's not about being sanctimonious. It's about understanding why a core part of this site was upset about that ad. And instead of trying to understand or show empathy, you post this. You should feel ashamed of yourself and the tone you set.

        There is nothing more stimulating than a case where everything goes against you. -- Sherlock Holmes

        by Carnacki on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:34:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ok (2.55)
          Why is it acceptable to whine and bitch, but to say things in a harsh tone is intolerable and insulting?  Let's not get into a debate over politeness, its just silly.

          Sometimes people try to make a point by joking about it like when they pretend to be teasing but are truly serious.

          Othertimes they whine and complain claim they just want someone to hear them out.

          Sometimes we're blunt and direct.

          And others are diplomatic and say things in a way society considers 'proper.'

          But really who gives a fuck.  A point is a point.    None of those offended want to debate the merit of Kos's arguement.  They want to side step the main point by claiming 'they were offended.'  Often times people change the debate, or pretend they are victimized instead of admitting error.  

          •  consta (4.00)
            I don't even know where to begin with your post. It's late here. I'm going to bed and let some one else deconstruct the not-so-latent hostility in your post towards those who "whine and bitch," a very telling way for you to put it.

            There is nothing more stimulating than a case where everything goes against you. -- Sherlock Holmes

            by Carnacki on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:21:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  he didn't quite say that (none)
          "shut your fucking pie hole", woulda been kinda funny though.  as someone who attended one of the most liberal schools in the country, and who hangs out with a LOT of women (i'm in nyc, its like 70% women here, nearly all of my closest friends are women), including numreous real life lesbians, there is nothing offensive about this ad!  there just isn't.  two actresses who agree to allow themselves to be portrayed in a certain way on an ad in exchange for money have the right to have a staged pie fight in which t&a shots are emphasized in order to get the attention of tv / internet viewers.  there is no threatening aspect to the ad, no explicit content, no harmful message.  its not positive or educational either, its meant to be titilating and make you want to watch the show.  thats it.  don't get all sut jhally on us here people...
        •  Women's studies and feminism (none)
          I agree that Kos's comments were harsh, although I'd probably not be at my most gentle self either after being bombarded by tens, possibly hundreds of angry email messages.

          I can also understand that some people can get upset and be offended by the pie fight ad. What I don't understand is that Kos's apparent (or possible) dislike of women's studies is interpreted as a dislike of the entire women's rights movement.

          Yes, women's studies is part of the women's rights movement. Still it's only one part of it, and (in my personal opinion as a scientist) at worst worrisomely reality-disengaged post-modernist mumbo-jumbo. Some examples can be found above, quotes in which it is claimed that e=mc2 is sexist.

          The point is, I don't think criticism of women's studies should be taken as dislike of women's rights movement. I myself am a great supporter of women's rights. My fiancee, who considers herself a feminist, wasn't bothered by the pie ad.

          •  women's studies -- reply (none)
            Yes, women's studies is part of the women's rights movement. Still it's only one part of it, and (in my personal opinion as a scientist) at worst worrisomely reality-disengaged post-modernist mumbo-jumbo. Some examples can be found above, quotes in which it is claimed that e=mc2 is sexist.

            I'm a member of a US women's studies' list with 20,00 members, and I've known a lot of WS people over here.  "Postmodernism" is more influential than  I'd like it to be but it isn't nearly as large a tendency as its high profile might suggest, and even it (pomo  wmst) isn't homogeneous; some, you might find reasonable - as you might find some feminist studies of science congenial.  

            The point is, I don't think criticism of women's studies should be taken as dislike of women's rights movement.

            But perhaps unthinking criticism of women's studies should be.  (I'm not saying your criticism of it is unthinking; it is, I'd say, somewhat ill-informed; but I'd say Kos's criticism  was.)

            My fiancee, who considers herself a feminist, wasn't bothered by the pie ad.

            It didn't bother me that much but then I think I'm just used to things like that (being in Europe, and being OK with the trade-off of sexualized ads and no Christian Right), but to me the ad is not the real issue. Kos's reply, and the "tit and bum" character of a lot of posts attacking the people who protested about his reply, certainly are issues, and I find them worrying.  

      •  How is your user ID 3 and not 1? (none)
        This will keep me awake for weeks...
      •  I'm sorry folks, I have to take a moment (none)
        Kos got ones on his own site.

        And people say he can't take criticism? That he doesn't have guts?

        Kos's commitment to free and open debate runs far deeper then the pack of idiots running around this thread who act like it's their God-given right to hand out ones and zeros to anyone who expresses an opinion one degree different from their own.

        Just by taking the ratings hit, Kos won this fight in a blow out. I think we know who the bigger person here is.

        Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

        by Goldfish on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:53:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  damn! (none)
        kos gets a 2.7 rating?! ok...time to get out the duct tape and take a canned food inventory...

        What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War? George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.

        by hazydan on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:58:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Question (none)
      This is not snark, but a sincere attempt at some clarity here:

      Is the corollary to "women's studies" "men's studies"? If there is feminism, is there masculinism?

      •  Answer (3.76)
        The "mens studies" equivalent to "women's studies" is generally called "history"
        •  Well, there's much more than (none)
          women's history to women's studies.  But cute.

          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

          by Cream City on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:53:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks, jerk (none)
          Go ahead, discourage people from asking questions.

          It doesn't bother me, but a shy lurker could see this interchange and be intimidated.

          •  Wow did that go over your head (4.00)
            The commenter wasn't being a jerk.  

            It was a actually a very smart defense of women's studies. He/she was trying to make a point that women's studies is simply a necessary reaction to the fact that our history classes are written by those who have had power, namely men.  The commenter was also trying to say that the reason there's never been a men's studies movement is because history (and I suspect the commenter would argue, most every course) is already taught from the perspective of men.

            That one went way over your head.

            •  No. But your tutelage is sweet. (none)
              Gender studies, a very very new field of thought (considering the thousands of years of civilization, The Feminist Mystique was late in coming,) has been taught largely from the perspective of women, has it not?
      •  Actually, yes (4.00)
        There is a field called "masculinity studies" -- and the entire field on both is called "gender studies" by those who have read anything in it in the last two decades.  Those who apparently have not, not to name names here, ahem, might find the readings in masculinity studies fascinating -- as those of us in what was called women's studies do.

        Essentially, if one gender or gender orientation is stereotyped and forced into specific roles, so are the others -- and all of us, then, are not allowed to fully explore what fits for us.  So the readings on advertising, for example, look at the messages sent to men as well as women by the Marlboro Man, the cowboy myth, etc.

        I have not seen a masculinity studies take on Gilligan's Island . . . but as for sitcoms, there is a terrific study on the stereotype of the "stupid male" -- as gendered and discriminatory as the stereotypes of the "ivory tower" by the anti-intellectuals.  Not that the latter would be the sort to toss off a phrase such as "the sanctimonious women's studies set."

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:52:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  hush, catnip! (3.60)
      the men are talking!  they'll tell you when they want to hear from you.  until then, zip it.

      "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." - MLK

      by JLFinch on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:19:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well (3.76)
        Isn't it fun to see how so many are laughing about this? Wouldn't want to get in the way of their fun, now would I??

        "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

        by catnip on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:20:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Imagine Beavis and Butthead (3.76)
          with college degrees, and that pretty much captures the mentality of both Kos' post and some of the replies.

          "Hehehe...hehehe...he said 'boob'...huhuhu...huhuhu.."

        •  I, laugher. (4.00)
          Just to clarify, I was laughing about the fact that the ad became the biggest ad in the history of the site. I think that's really ironically funny considering the controversy.

          But others are laughing at the fact that anyone could be offended by the ad, and laughing AT those people, and being pretty damn juvenile, which is problematic.

          Not even talking about Kos there's a HUGE mob-esque lashing-out going on in this thread where men who feel "oppressed" are regrettably going a little nuts and adolescent in their pushback. It's getting a little weird and sexist, and I haven't even visited the tail end (most recent) part of this thread in the past 10 minutes.

          Even for someone -- like me -- who doesn't think the ad is so bad it should be taken down, it's getting a little disturbing in here and it's disgusting to know there are so many nascent creeps out there.

          Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

          by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:03:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Addison (4.00)
            They're following kos's lead. He sets an example whether he likes it or not.

            There is nothing more stimulating than a case where everything goes against you. -- Sherlock Holmes

            by Carnacki on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:24:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah (4.00)
              Yeah, I recognize that. Though I don't think it's so much following Kos' lead as viewing Kos' post as justification and permission to go misogynistically crazy in a way they usually don't get to because of the (generally) illusory dour feminists that "oppress" them...

              Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

              by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:27:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Frat boys here (3.60)
          as well as in the White House.
      •  Since Kos does not speak for me ... (4.00)
        ...on this issue, indeed, his reply pisses me off, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use your sexist broadbrush against all men.

        **

        Writing dialog George Lucas so terrible at is. --Yoda

        Visit The Next Hurrah

        by Meteor Blades on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:02:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's the thing, he's not defending the ad (none)
      He's saying it wasn't worth attacking in the first place.

      I find the ad stupid, distasteful, and even anti-progressive.

      But then when I think about it, focusing on stuff like this only takes us away from more pressing issues.

      To some degree, by focusing on issues like this, we play right into the republican trap of "liberals want to tell you what to think!"

      We probably both share the same opinion on the ad. But not every opinion is worth expressing, let alone worth starting a coup over.

      •  people (4.00)
        were offended by the sanctimonious women's studies comment..

        Deciding that something is immoral isn't forcing people to think a certain way..

      •  precisely (4.00)
        divide and conquor, it's the republican way!

        Honestly people. Please.  Chill.

        This is why the repubs are in power, and it will stay that way if we aren't looking more at the bigger picture.

        Yes we all have our soapboxes.

        Yes we all have our pet peeves.

        and yes, we all have a right to stand and speak from them.

        but we also have a right to tell others to lighten up.

        Just remember...people are always more important than ideas.

        by circuithead on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:33:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And we all have our means of income (none)
          but that doesn't mean we have to sit back and be the passive audience of ANY advertising, does it?

          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

          by Cream City on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:55:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How are you passive? (none)
            You have to click on the ad to see it.  

            "It takes all kinds to make a world" - Jean Genet from The Balcony

            by Beckylooo on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:22:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The ad on the front page (none)
              is there for all to see the buxom piefighters (oh, I am so weary of the catfight metaphor:-) before clicking (which I haven't bothered to do, nor did I participate in the pie fight threads; my concern is with the consistent and worsengin way in which particular concerns are dismissed).

              Is that more clear?

              "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

              by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:59:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Why don't animal rights activists... (none)
      ...blow up the butcher shop?  Is a lab with 25 mice being used to find some insight into fundamental biological processes the real problem with not valuing the lives of other animals that share our planet?

      If Kos accepts advertising money for a pretty tame ad, is that really the reason women's rights are still an issue in this country?  Do you really think he's a sexist pig?

      Please, pick your fights.

    •  catnip (4.00)
      For once, I actually agree with you.  Strongly.

      You have every right to be offended.

    •  "sanctimonious women's studies set' (4.00)
      Perhaps Kos was overly broad (no pun intended) using this description. Here's what I thought he was talking about:

      Those within the "female studies" "female rights advocacy" intelligencia complex who harm the cause of women's rights and women's dignity by focusing their attention on irrelevant BS like the pie fight ad instead of critical issues where women are really getting screwed (figuratively speaking).

      -Reproductive rights: Kos has always been on the right side of this one as far as I know.

      -Workplace rights: Kos seems always to have been a tireless critic of WalMart and other companies who pay women less than men and exclude women from promotions that men get.

      -Women in Govt: Kos backs female candidates for office and gives OUR female politicians huge praise for doing the right thing for all of us.

      To imply that Kos is anti feminist or hostile toward women's rights/women's dignity is ignorant in my opinion.

      "God created men. Samuel Colt made them equal."--Colt Firearms Motto.

      by Manix on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:11:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  damn! i was going to keep OUT of this one BUT (4.00)
        when i read your post, here i am...
        Those within the "female studies" "female rights advocacy" intelligencia complex who harm the cause of women's rights and women's dignity by focusing their attention on irrelevant BS like the pie fight ad instead of critical issues where women are really getting screwed (figuratively speaking).

        i think what is missing here is a bit of history.  when women have battled for recognition - equal recognition throughout history, there have always been those who wanted to prevent that recognition.

        the reasons mostly boil down to money:  equal pay, equal property within marriage, the right to OWN property, get credit, get loans, the vote...

        these steps in equal recognition/responsibility have been hard fought for and difficult to achieve.  after the sixties, we finally started seeing progress in tangible areas - self-determination of our own bodies, more equitable pay, equal treatment in scholarships, training, jobs, etc.

        in the last decade, unfortunately, especially when the republicans are in power, there has been a subtle redefining of women in society.  the media pushes the "female image" that is so distorted and mentally disturbed that it requires professional women to continually mutilate themselves to be accepted (case in point: barbara walters, mary tyler moore, the millions of women who are cut, snipped, suctioned - all to please the men who seek the perfect "female" image for partners).

        we have seen a drop in interest in young women to pursue science, math, technology in favor of pursuing adolescent pregnancy and childbirth and doomed to fail marriages.  

        women are losing ground and we that fought the early battles in our "women's studies" of the sixties are justifiably upset and angered.

        to marginalize what many of us forfeited for the "next" generations is to marginalize us as vital, productive human beings.  

        i will never have a family, i will most likely never marry.  i will die alone without that extended group because i was busy "breaking ground" in a "brave new world" offered to women.  i knew it at the time and was willing to accept that my role was to reshape the future along with the women who along side chose to step outside the traditional mold.

        kos, you have on several occasions, appeared to "dismiss" our concerns.  in doing so, you dismiss the collective "us" that helped make the world the vital and interesting place you inhabit and seek to maintain.

        catnip, sandblaster, i hope you will reconsider.  i hope any of the women (and men) on this site who want to leave will reconsider.  the battles left to fight are greater than our backsliding at the moment.  ours is but one brushfire in the conflagration that is destroying america.  we have to continue to fight on ALL fronts - in a united front.

        we have to keep our differences close within our locked battle lines - we have to hold together.  if we don't the republicans win - rather, the neocons/fascists win.  if that happens, there will BE no more "women's studies", no more women's rights, no more rights for liberal or individual thinkers.

        we are under seige.  there is time to bring kos to understand our view - at a later time - and we WILL continue to bring our views forward.  the one thing we cannot do is quit.  to quit is to accept failure - the failure of america and all of our rights.

        kos, what we ask of you is that you put a bit of a pause on your frustrations and remember that we are ALL in this together - to live or to die.  you need us as much as we need you.  the power of this site is the ability of us all to focus on our common enemy.  the neocons and rethugs would like nothing better than for us to decide that enemy is  us, not them.  we have senators, representatives and those at the highest levels of government coming here for civil discourse.  nothing will drive them away faster than this type of internal catfight - forget pie fights... cat - as in cougar, lion, leopard and every other powerful cat with the ability to kill this place.

        please think, everyone, before you type in haste.

        War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Long Live Oceana!

        by edrie on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:08:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  ""sanctimonious women's set"" (none)
      Um, Kos said "sanctimonious women's studies set." That's not a little bit of difference. Now, I'm going to assume your were typing real fast, and left out that one key word, and didn't try to misrepresent Kos's statement by omission. Because, if you had done something like that, I, and I'm sure others, would have a great deal of trouble believing you're participating in good faith.

      So I'm going to assume you were real anger and just forgot a word (it happens to every one) and weren't trying to inveigle and obfuscate Kos's statement to strengthening your argument.

      I'm just now finding out about this brew-ha-ha, and I don't know what side I fall on yet, but I find it very hard to consider an argument when it's made using distorated, selective quotations. So please, tell me that was an honest mistake, and we can move on.

      Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

      by Goldfish on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:23:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kos, you seem to be (4.00)
    regularly pissed off by the women on your site.  The last time I noticed you post in this "tone" it was also about women's reactions to something (specifically, it was Langevin dropping out/NARAL).

    I am starting to feel a bit like a dog who has been given a bad name and hung.

    •  Good point (4.00)
      Hopefully kos will slam the guys at some point.

      Politics is so much better when there's sex. - Louis XIV

      by goblue72 on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:16:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kos ain't MSM (none)
        I doubt he chooses his attacks in the interest of appearing balanced, such that a vocal faction feels appeased.  

        Unlike the MSM, I think he attacks based on what he thinks is right and needs to be said.

    •  yeah, then then those NARAL bums (4.00)
      gave their endorsement to Lincon Chafee (R).  Great way to keep abortion at the top of the Wingnut Agenda.  Lousy way to achieve your long term goal.

      ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

      by NevDem on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:31:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is very disconcerting. (4.00)
      Kos' arguments about NARAL could at least be defended as arguments for pragmatic politics.

      But this - this entry is just shocking. I agree with him about the pie ad, actually, but his comments on "the sanctimonious women's studies set" are appalling.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:33:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He dismisses the humorless, not the women (none)
      And come on, he speaks out on two events, and that makes it a pattern?

      When I think of kos pissed off, I remember a comment about military contractors before anything else.

    •  I believe you meant to say 'hanged'. (none)
      That is unless you are feeling like a poorly named painting of a dog, or are, heaven forbid, displaying gender bias in your use of language.

      Freudian slip?

      </snark>

      "Good idea Chuck, but syrup won't stop 'em." Firesign Theater, Everything You Know is Wrong

      by 3card on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:43:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am as close to literally laughing my ass off (3.25)
    as is humanly possible.
  •  Haven't seen the ad since (none)
    I turned them all off-but do think it's a silly controversy on a liberal site.
  •  I would never (2.00)
    have watched the ad if it weren't for this thread.  funny how that works.

    "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? -Hillel Pennachio

    by TigerX on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:11:16 PM PDT

  •  haha, well at least now i know it was all (none)
    about an ad... haha. i have firefox and blocked all ads so i've been scratching my head, amongst other things, for about a week on this whole pie thing.

    if this ad offends people then support open source software, get firefox and then place this in the ad blocker " ad "

    •  Yeah, me too (none)
      After a few weeks of rigorous ad blocking, I barely know what a web page ad looks like.  Sorry Kos for not clicking, but I really never clicked them anyway.

      You poor fools don't understand, do you? This car is the property of the World Bank! That money goes to ITALY

      by Easy B Oven on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:45:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree with Kos (4.00)
    It's just an ad. Our culture exploits womens' sexuality and that is unfortunate. I also think that womens' best chance at being treated with equality and respect in our society is with regaining a Democratic majority.

    Ads for a reality show featuring big-breasted women do not warrant such a furor. Both men and women are treated as sex objects on reality tv and elsewhere. Let's stand up for not only for womens' rights but for human rights by uniting behind political candidates who will vote for such legislation.

    To hell with advertising-sex sells as well as bad taste (the wildly successful and profitable Jerry Springer show comes to mind)that won't change anytime soon.

    It is time Christians were judged more by their likeness to Christ than their notions of Christ. -William Penn

    by chicagochristianleft on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:11:38 PM PDT

    •  Think about what that means (none)
      I also think that womens' best chance at being treated with equality and respect in our society is with regaining a Democratic majority.

      I've heard variation after variation on this sentiment, so don't think I'm picking on you in particular...but that is such bullshit I don't know where to start.

      A Democratic majority means nothing from a women's rights perspective if you regain it by parroting Republican attitudes, advancing candidates that disregard or actively work against so-called "women's issues" (I hate that term for reasons I don't have time to get into here), and dismissing our objections as detracting from our 'ultimate goal.'  To many of us, they are part and parcel of the same thing.  

      Sorry, but that "settle down, we'll get to you later, after we've accomplished the important stuff" is why we're so pissed off in the first place.

  •  Word (4.00)
    I am a liberal.  I am a progressive.  I am also a hetero male, and I thoroughly enjoy ads with hot women having pie fights.  Good on you, Kos.

    Would sooner take a nail through the forehead than actually watch "The Real Gilligan's Island", however.

    •  Flip it (none)
      I am a liberal.  I am a progressive.  I am also a hetero female, and I would thoroughly enjoy ads with hot men showing off some large dicks. In fact a reality show comparing them in size to some posters defending kos on this thread might be particularly enlightening.

      I've been around since pre-scoop and I'm feeling like maybe it's time to leave. For a man who posted on Fishyshark about the power and violence of childbirth I would expect a LOT more respect for the female force in the universe from kos.

      The more things change, the more they stay the same...

      bummer

  •  "Sometimes, ..." (none)
    "...the best way to kill something you disagree with is to ignore it."
    That's what I do with that female-like person with the Adam's apple thing and that splotchy guy with the Irish name who likes Middle Eastern food--or sponges--on Faux.
    And, given SpongeBoy's ratings trend, he could be on his way to Sinclair "Broadcasting" soon, which is very much similar to death, except with more commercials.

    "I have come here to chew bubble gum and to kick ass...and I'm all out of bubble gum. Oh -- have you read the Downing Street Minutes yet?"

    by Newton Snookers on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:14:01 PM PDT

  •  Please take it down Kos! (none)
    Or my wife will kill me!  Whew, pie!!!   Yow
  •  Somehow (4.00)
    ...I hadn't been aware of this issue until this diary. I think I saw the words "pie fight" in the titles of some diaries, but I guess it never seemed pressing that I click and see what the diaries were about.

    Today was really hot and muggy here in central Ohio, and I gather it was the same in other parts of the country as well. There's certainly plenty to be outraged about these days, but I can't help but wonder if the weather has ramped up the crankiness just a bit. I think it has for me, anyway.

    Peace, namaste, and good night, everyone.

  •  It pisses me off!! (none)
    I can't make it load. Dang!

    I wish they had a Quicktime option, it's the most reliable format!

  •  charming (3.94)
    And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site.

    Me, I'll focus on the important shit.

    which might well be why you have a 40-60 split.  but hey, go for it.  evidently the "important shit" has nothing to do with how the very strong women on your site feel.  fuck em.

    and fuck the "sanctimoniuos women's studes set" too eh?  as if women's studies has nothing to offer you, Markos.  shame on you.  

    but hell, its your site.  go ballistic on your women supporters.

    and have a nice fucking day

  •  sigh (3.96)
    I've loved this site for a long time, and I've been so disappointed by the recent swipes Kos has been taking at those working for women's rights, or for better representations of women in media.  How dare the "women's studies set" be offended by images that objectify women and play into ugly gender stereotypes! Just as it was a few weeks ago -- how DARE those ladies not toe the party line when the party starts hedging on supporting reproductive freedom!  Why does it seem so very obvious that if someone had produced an ad with offensive, stereotypical representations of other key Democratic constituencies, say African Americans or Jewish people, the criticism would be coming fast and furious on sites like this one.  But I guess we ladies just have no sense of humor.  With the climate here these days, I'm beginning to wait for a post to pop up chastising all the "feminazis" on this board who see problems with the ad.
    •  asdf (3.88)
      Good. I'm not the only one who thought Kos' post was ignorant.
      •  Not so much ignorant as very very young (4.00)
        I think a big key to this this is the age of the people involved.  There is no disputing kos' "cred"  or his right to say what he wants on his sight, but his attitude speaks to what he is- a very very young male - born in 1971- who hasn't walked in the shoes of a lot of the people who took offense at the ad.  His understanding is limited by his experience, imho.  I could be wrong, and certainly only he knows what his understanding is, but he surely sounds exactly like someone who doesn't understand because they weren't there, and female, during the early part of the fight for women's rights, and they aren't female today.  No matter how realized or sensitive you may be, if you aren't walking in a woman's body in this world, there's about 90 percent of what it's about to be a woman that you are simply never going to understand.  

        I agree there are some  important things that unite us, but I'm with those that think kos' post is a naive blunder of larger proportions than a lot of people are "getting."

        "A psychotic drowns in the very same stuff a mystic swims in."
        Pema Chodron

        by jeebs on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:50:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  34 is "very very young"? (none)
          WTF?

          "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

          by fishhead on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:10:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I call bullshit (3.69)
          Oh, boo-hoo, it's so hard to understand women! Waah! They want special treatment, like being treated with respect, just like any other human being! Imagine that!

          "No matter how realized or sensitive you may be, if you aren't walking in a woman's body in this world, there's about 90 percent of what it's about to be a woman that you are simply never going to understand."  

        •  I have met many men 34 (3.87)
          and younger, even much younger, who are far wiser and more open-minded about feminism and much more.  Some have written award-winning papers in women's/gender studies.

          And I know many men far older than 34 who also are so -- and who have been fine mentors for me and many other women.  Some of these men teach in women's/gender studies.  Some of them helped support the call for the field to make it possible -- just as we wouldn't have the vote without the work of millions of women, yes, but the few good and fine men it took to vote for it.

          Misogyny has no age limits.  I would not expect anything from a man based on his age; I would look to his actions to reveal his mind.  As Kos did.

          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

          by Cream City on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:19:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  excellent point (4.00)
            I wasn't trying to cut kos any slack or excuse him.

             My point, somewhat cynical, was that it didn't surprise me, given his age.  His comments sounded pissy and juvenile to me, that was the character of them. They sounded like the comments of someone with no experience.  That's what I heard.  

            But-- as you pointed out-- that is just one part of this picture.  A direct shared experience is not necessary for  an empathetic understanding.

            "A psychotic drowns in the very same stuff a mystic swims in."
            Pema Chodron

            by jeebs on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:43:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Wait until he has a daughter (4.00)
          He might be less amused when the comments get directed toward her.
        •  My feelings too (4.00)
          "Young" is a relative term, but I too thought this smacked of someone who has not been involved all that much in non-virtual, face-to-face, endless-meetings where you (hopefully) learn some stuff about gender roles and politics.  I'm just surprised and disappointed.  If Kos had spent a lot of time working the politics of the left in the analog world, I think he would have a different, more nuanced approach to this subject.  My first reactions to his post were surprise, disappointment, and a sense that he must be a lot younger than I had thought.

          Now, I am neither a woman nor was I "there", deeply involved in major struggles for womens' rights.  But I have learned that not everyone enjoyed all the priviledges that I did growing up white, male, well enough off, straight, and American.  It took me a while to overcome my upbringing, and I said and did some pretty stupid things along the way when I started working with others who came from very different places.

          I think Kos is in the process of learning some of that stuff right now.  I do think that his flippant tone and choice of language are out of line.  I won't lose any sleep over it (plenty of other stuff for that) but count me in the "disappointed and mildly shocked" camp.  I expected better.

    •  Disappointing response from Kos (3.94)
      Way to be caustic and dismissive!

      However, despite your nastily insincere invitation to go someplace else, I think I'll hang out with those damn humorless women and the humorless men who understand that denigrating someone's complaint is not the way to win their friendship or respect.

      •  Wasn't Okrent (4.00)
        lambasted for this very thing?
      •  Innocent Question (none)
        I may even agree with you. But I didn't see the ad. What's the beef?

        Now for kos' choice of words, womens' studies group? Ugh. Bad choice. Real bad choice.

        I'll let him answer for that.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:36:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah..."women's studies" (4.00)
          And the ironic thing is that this lady was a molecular, cellular and developmental biology person who worked on

          Ta Da

          BREAST CANCER

          •  Again I won't defend it (none)
            In fact, I'll severely criticize it. Should not have been said.

            But about the ad?

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:49:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I tried to say this (4.00)
              but kept getting drowned out at the time.

              A number of women have been feeling less valued at this site- you know, the pussy diary, the tone of the Naral stuff... lots of compounding things.

              So I wrote a diary trying to find out what women here were thinking and feeling- and trying to figure out how to get heard.

              The next day the Pie ad was up and it seemed like a good time to point out that it wasn't exactly adding to our sense of being valued and respected here.  It was never about sex- just context- and getting the greatest number of women to feel comfortable here so we could elect some democrats.

              Then Rod Serling came on ...

              •  Fair enough (none)
                But I MUST quibble.

                And yes, dammit, I'll refer to myself here.

                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.

                AndI take serous issue with the reaction of the women here on the Summers controversy. To be frank, the women did not step up for the most part.  Many did, colleen in particular. But NOTHING, nothing like this.

                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?

                I'll tell you where it was - calling for my head.

                So while it is clear that kos made a serious mistake here on attitude and language - I find the defense of NARAL to have been not a good example and the reaction of the women of dailykos on Summers to have been weak.

                So I think no one here has been perfect.

                Except me of course. Heh.

                The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:14:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think this issue (4.00)
                  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."
                •  Damn (none)
                  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.

                •  you're persistent.. (4.00)
                  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.

                  Q:"You've called Bush a loser." A:"And a liar." Q:"You apologized for the loser comment." A:"But never for the liar, have I?" - Rolling Stone with Harry Reid

                  by alivingston on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:32:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Persistent (4.00)
                    is a nice word for what I am.

                    On NARAL, I amnot sure what convinced you to disagree with me again but I would be interested to find out.

                    Persistence you know. Heh.

                    BTW, kos and I have differentposiitons on NARAL, he objected to their PERCEIVED muscling out of Langevin.

                    I thought NARAL was not only right but REQUIRED to fight against Langevin and in favor of a pro-choice Dem.

                    My beef with NARAL is their endorsementof a Republican when a Dem candidate who is BETTER than the the Republican is available to support.

                    A Republican majority in the Senate is BAD for pro-choice folks. NARAL betrayed its cause.

                    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                    by Armando on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:38:12 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think I know the answer, but (4.00)
                      My beef with NARAL is their endorsement of a Republican when a Dem candidate who is BETTER than the the Republican is available to support.

                      a pro-life dem, or a pro-choice dem?  if you're talking about a pro-choice dem only, than I am still with you.

                      but from NARAL's perspective a pro-life democrat can never be better than a pro-choice republican, because the right to choose is not something they will or should ever subjugate to the whims of the democratic party, else why do they exist?

                      the frame that persuaded me was racism, which is so ahborrent we would never conceive of asking african-americans or jews to support a segregationist or anti-semite for the long-term interest of the party that supported them.

                      but there is something else.  two months ago we read "what's the matter with kansas" in our dfa bookclub, and there was a particular story that stood out to us as chilling.  

                      frank talks about the week that kansas city was taken over by the new radical conservatives in one fell swoop.  demonstrations were planned outside of abortion clinics during a convention.  police recommended that clinics shut down for a week.  all clinics shut down.

                      the news that the protesters shut down abortion clinics raged like a forest fire as radical kansas conservatives (previously a negligable group) called for enforcement across the nation.  thousands upon thousands descended in kansas city and lay down in front of cars and chained themselves to fences and stayed in kc over the summer since they had a mission there.  they were going to complete the job.  and they changed the face of kc politics.

                      support for the pro-life movement is coming from fresh sources: people worried about racial imbalance, population implosion, genetic selection (which genes tend to get aborted?).  we have to start dialogues about new concerns, not find ways to accomodate.

                      I don't believe anymore that dems can break rank on this issue in terms of new candidates.  

                      a more exhaustive address than you were requesting, but I think I'm trying to convince you.

                      Q:"You've called Bush a loser." A:"And a liar." Q:"You apologized for the loser comment." A:"But never for the liar, have I?" - Rolling Stone with Harry Reid

                      by alivingston on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:24:32 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Summers is on a different planet (4.00)
                  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.

                •  Silly me.... (4.00)
                  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....
                •  Lots of us don't buy the notion (4.00)
                  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.

                  "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

                  by colleen on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:45:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  re: NARAL (none)
                  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.

                •  I love your passion and fire! (none)
                  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!

                  "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                  by Glinda on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:39:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Armando.... (none)
          I would suggest that you go look at the ad yourself and perhaps read some of the previous "pie fight" diaries to acquaint yourself with this subject...

          however, I (too) have no fucking clue about what everyone is on about... i didn't look at the ad or read any of the diaries either.

          But... upon reading Kos's front-page response to the pie fighter, I thought of you.

          bush is a weed in the garden of democracy.

          by miss love on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:51:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I've noticed this too (4.00)
      And I think it is a serious problem.

      Kos has some explaining to do.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:21:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you mean NARAL (none)
        I am not explaining myself anymore.

        I feel moral and just in my position on their endorsement of Chafee.

        Fuck NARAL.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:34:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not just NARAL (4.00)
          Anyone can attack an interest group. Interest group politics are inherently screwy. I have bigger beefs with NARAL anyhow, including their decision to take the 1990s off.

          But that's not the nature of my concern with Kos. You can see my bigger comment on this, but his line "And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site" is something I have a serious problem with.

          I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

          by eugene on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:42:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I thought the request was for Kos (none)
          to explain himself, and that you did a front-page post that took a different tack in part?  

          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

          by Cream City on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:22:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  no, fuck Langevin (none)
          first, for being a regressive anti-choice candidate, and second, for wimping out of the primary because of it.

          We have to make the whole party anti-choice and take out the pro-choice challengers to appeal to him.

          Not a very loyal Democrat, I guess.  Screw him, his character is questionable I'd say, going only from this particular series of events.

  •  Screw the pie fight (4.00)
    I say we put up an ad for video of the Donnie Fowler punch thrown at Bob Brigham.

    In fact, I bet we could raise a couple hundred bucks right here at dkos to set up a pie fight between the two of them... while they're clad only in thong underwear.  (Just because it would be really, really weird.)

    If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't science!

    by Bob Johnson on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:15:53 PM PDT

    •  Just got an e-mail on that (none)
      What the fuck?

      As for the Gillgan ad, I have not seen it and it sounds offensive. But what the fuck is the brouhaha? I missed it completely.

      Are folks saying kos should pull it? Who's gonna pay for that? I'll be gawddamned, I've had to delete porno here and people have bitched when I did so.

      This seems crazy to me.

      What am I missing?

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:18:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's all about you... (none)
        Folks here are clamoring for a beefcake shot of Armando (beyond the Fernando Llamas photo I posted of you eons ago).

        If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't science!

        by Bob Johnson on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:20:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now that would offend (none)
          But the ad? Seriously, what is in the ad to spark this reaction. I have not seen it.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:24:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's like those old Miller Beer 'catfight spots (none)
            Two bosomy women fighting and getting wet... if you get the picture.

            If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't science!

            by Bob Johnson on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:30:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ok (none)
              Sounds like a typically offensive ad.

              And?

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:31:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A group of folks got their knickers in a knot (4.00)
                ... over a "liberal" website running a sexually exploitative ad.

                I missed the battle, but some of the bad blood spilled over into my diary this evening.

                I'm still trying to hose it down...

                If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't science!

                by Bob Johnson on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:33:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "knickers in a knot"... (none)
                  Oh God no, Bob, why'd you have to say that? Don't you know the Hell it will unleash? </snark>

                  Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

                  by Goldfish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:09:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  "Sexually exploitative"? (none)
                  Is this ad is an example of "sexual exploitation?" In that sense, I swear I'm being exploited, non-sexually, but exploited nonetheless, every single day I go to work.

                  Oy vey.

                  They told me I was gullible. And I believed them.

                  by eco2geek on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:13:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  for Armando & Bob: (90% of iceberg underwater) (4.00)
                  The best quick summary I've seen is this comment just above: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/6/6/1125/10793/236#236

                  Part of a kinda long-simmering, recently bubbling perception.  

                  I have missed most of this simmer, but was startled recently to see a gilas girl making the following comment:

                  I would, however, modify Miss Devore's statement to note that LSF is more hospitable to feminist viewpoints than dKos.  dKos is perfectly hospitable to women, especially women cut from a certain fabric.  There's ample evidence for this.

                  Its a less hospitable spot for feminst viewpoints, especially those that put the common sense "realities" of liberal, white male professionals into question. (Same holds true for critical viewpoints on race, welcoming to folks of color, especially those cut from a certain fabric, but disturb the comfortable reality of the majority liberal white frameworks and the hospitality dries up pretty quickly).

                  Frankly, I'm stunned that you would even pretend this is not the case, you're honest and observant enough to know what goes on around here.

                  In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel
                  by a gilas girl on Fri Jun 3rd, 2005 at 04:02:05 PST

                  I take this as pretty clear evidence that something much more than the infamous "humorless feminists" is going on here (the subthread linked there is worth a look for some of the other comments as well).  

                  Re: this specific case let me make some perhaps annoyingly obvious closing comments (and I say these things as a 'sex-positive' activist who is generally in favor of diversity, expression, and our culture 'loosening up' about these things):  Sexuality is one of the most highly charged arenas in all of life.  Consider: you can make comedies about murder, in which the murder and even grisly details of it are fodder for the jokes.  You can't do that about rape (or if you did people would come after you with pitchforks and torches). Now hang on a moment, I know that obviously this ad has nothing to do with rape, at least to most of us.  But a woman's ability to laugh off or ignore sleazy sex ads can vary dramatically depending among other things on how much she and those close to her have been victimized or assaulted in sexual ways.   Feeling slighted and trivialized as women in terms of expression or power also makes some women more reactive to such things.  (and the reverse: seriously, if you want to  see a woman feeling freer than she usually does about others seeing her body, try her when she's just had her power affirmed in some major way - promoted, elected, etc. -- this is a totally anecdotal observation that I never shared before, but I once lived in a student coop with a hot tub and noted some surprising changes of heart about shyness under very specific circumstances.  in my utopia women feel VERY EMPOWERED all the time 8^)

                  The charge around this sort of debate becomes a bit like the atheists vs. liberal religionist death matches we see periodically (in that case I think it's folks who've felt on some level 'assaulted' by religion who often first take offense).  It also shows signs of turning into a replay of the porn wars that rocked activism circles of hte 80s.  Even if as many noted upon Dworkin's death the 'pro sex' position seems to have 'won' that one our society is still majorly fucked up (hmmm) about sexuality, and this causes all sorts of pain and injustice which should not be trivialized.

                  So, I agree with those who criticize Markos for the 'women's studies' comment, though as I agree with much of other content of his post.  I personally didn't find the ad offensive, just stupid.  (I find silicon kinda depressing).

                  I would ask both sides of this to try to empathize a bit more with the emotional pain of the other perspective.

                  And, in light of what a gilas girl and others have been saying, I hope that the dkos community can begin to look at ways in which the fantastically vibrant, usually self-correcting, really kick-ass culture that has evolved here, within Markos' brilliant frame-setting and supported by his steadfast hard work, is not utterly sacrosanct and has many ways it can grow further as it becomes an ever-more fully-blown, and kaliedoscopically passionate, Big Tent kinda place.  

                  Cheers to all.

                  I had to destroy my tinfoil hat because it was beaming coded messages into my brain.

                  by stevelu on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:17:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  kos recants 'women's studies set' - update (4.00)
                    Who says we don't have responsive leadership?

                    One other note, just in case my little essay attracts any attention: I didn't really explain why a single comment (or rather a few comments in a single thread) would sway my opinion of the larger dkos culture issue - largely cuz of hte respect I ahve for a gilas girl, basically.

                    I had to destroy my tinfoil hat because it was beaming coded messages into my brain.

                    by stevelu on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:23:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  And I wasn't in on the ad fight (none)

                I got nuthin'. But check out unbossed.

                by Joan McCarter on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:38:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  It's tongue-in-cheek. (none)
                It's supposed to be as funny as it is--excuse me--titillating. It's not really either, but that's not the point.

                Tempest in a teapot, but that's my opinion.

        •  It's true (none)
          I want to know if Armando looks like Antonio Bandares.

          "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

          by colleen on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:54:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The ad (none)
        The video is rather big on showing cleavage and buttocks (as a non-ad-seeing subscriber, I wouldn't have seen it without the loud complaints) and the controversy made the rec. list a day or so ago.
  •  :::slaps forehead::: (4.00)
    So that's what all of those pie references were about today. For a minute there, I thought I had missed something relevant.

    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

    by Alumbrados on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:16:54 PM PDT

  •  For the most part agreed (4.00)
    with a caveat: I find your periodic snide remarks aimed at womens' groups to also be tedious. Apparently you hold some sort of stereotyped view of what feminism is and who feminists are, and consequently have a bit of a tude towards them. Here's a news flash - that so-called "sanctimonious womens studies set" is easily a hell of a lot more varied in terms of ideologies, attitudes toward pop culture, etc., than you appear to be aware.
  •  The add does make me angry (4.00)
    and resentful.....because....

    I'm on goddamend dial-up and can't play the damned clip!

    Now...if I had DSL or Cable modem I'd probably be a little more open minded about the whole thing.

    "God created men. Samuel Colt made them equal."--Colt Firearms Motto.

    by Manix on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:17:41 PM PDT

  •  Man, a million possible diaries (4.00)
    have floated through my head regarding Piegate.

    I sort of settled on one, but it's too late to post it now.

    It was going to be:

    An Easily Offended Woman's Guide to Amsterdam.

    Why?  Because - gasp, dear lord no - there are ads for an all-nude ballet on these news and commercial screens on the trams (rail cars).  Yes!  BOOBS!  The evil Dutch patriarchy was behind it of course... no, can't be, because there's full frontal male nudity as well.

    Also, - gasp - there is legalized prostitution in Amsterdam.  Easily offended women should NOT walk through the red light district!  These women choose their profession, and have their own union, plus very intense police protection.  They have boobs too, nice ones, I might add.

    ==

    Now, another one I was going to write had to do with all the topless women I've seen at our gay pride festival.  My dyke friend and I just kept hoping that:

    1.  they wouldn't put their shirts on
    2.  they were wearing sunscreen

    Now, Easily Offended Women wouldn't be able to face gay pride, now, would they?  Because, you see, there are BOOBS PRESENT.  Bare ones.
    •  It was never about sex (4.00)
      It was about making the greatest number of progressive women feel welcome so we could elect democrats.
      •  Well, after a while (4.00)
        the comments got into how women show their breasts as the result of our male-dominated society.

        Believe me, most of the people who posted on that thread should never, ever go to Europe.

        •  I was surprised how it changed. (4.00)
          I really just wanted to form a cohesive group and get some Democrats in.  I'm pretty fucking sad- because things didn't have to go this way.

          Peace.  I always enjoyed your posts.  I'll really miss them.

          •  thanks sandblaster (none)
            I didn't know you were a woman until now, btw!
          •  I know you think you can't stay ... (4.00)
            ...here, but I hope you change your mind. While I intensely disagree with most of what Markos said in this piece, he has put together an astonishingly good site where we all learn something everyday, where we can link up in action projects and investigative projects and where we can argue about important issues (which, in my opinion, includes advertising images). Please, stick around.

            **

            Writing dialog George Lucas so terrible at is. --Yoda

            Visit The Next Hurrah

            by Meteor Blades on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:41:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How? (4.00)
              how do we stick around? how?  how?  
              I felt i'd found a place here and now i see that my women's studies background is held up for ridicule and mockery.  so how do i become a legitmate voice here?  how?
              •  I think the community is more (4.00)
                than just Kos. While Kos is doing his best Archie Bunker impersonation tonight, there are probably plenty of folks here (myself included, I hope) who don't share his apparently backward view about womens' studies, feminism, etc. Maybe that counts for something.
                •  Counts for a lot (4.00)
                  Counts for so much that Markos could go on another tirade and I still wouldn't leave this site, although I might consider skipping his diaries for a day or so.

                  I do the vast majority of my Dkos reading on the side diaries and comments sections of diaries; not the front page entries.  The front page diaries are usually excellent, of course, but the bulk of content on this website is provided by the users, not the owner.

                  Those livid at Kos should just tell him to get over himself and should stop reading his diaries.  Don't withrdraw your perspectives and knowledge from the rest of us!  Why should we be punished with a mass exodus of users from Kos, just because Kos made shitty comments?

                  It ain't really what you'd call change. It's all happened before and it'll happen again with a different set of facts. -Gloria Naylor

                  by GN1927 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:15:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  TravnTexas (none)
                Please see my reply to MB below.

                There is nothing more stimulating than a case where everything goes against you. -- Sherlock Holmes

                by Carnacki on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:57:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I was a women's studies minor (4.00)
                and I am staying.  We don't know what type of emails and complaints Kos received because of the ad.  Maybe they were way over the top in attacking him, maybe he is completely overreacting.  

                I am more than willing to give Kos the benefit of the doubt based on many things, not the least of which was creating this site and giving tens of thousands of Democrats a place to congregate and exchange ideas, thoughts, rants, whatever else they want to.

              •  Check me if I'm wrong... (none)
                ...but this didn't start as a Kos post, did it?  It started as an attack on Kos because of an ad on his site.

                Let's keep it straight.

              •  I was just discussing (4.00)
                tonight with someone about why American liberals have marginalized in American society.  Our assessment?  They're easily offended by one another - if one who shares similar values is not 100% on-side, they are the enemy.

                There's something oddly black-and-white about American social discourse.

                "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

                by fishhead on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:19:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hence my grip (4.00)
                  With the people who were defending NARAL and attacking Kos (and anyone else who didn't see the issue 100% there way) during that whole fiasco.

                  And I know I'll have Hell to pay for saying this, since a good portion of the people reading this thread are going to take it the wrong way: People really need to get over themselves, and stop getting so wrapped up in their petty little ideas of what is and isn't offensive.

                  And I think now might be a good time to post this.


                  Maryscott's Law ®:

                  Entering a discussion on a blog or message board and taking offense at wording used in the title, the body of the diary -- or in any comment thereto -- and proceeding to hijack the fucking discussion with an...

                      * enraged/saddened/worried/indignant comment,
                      * employing a pleading/complaining/accusing tone,
                      * decrying/condemning/mourning the use of the offending word or phrase as
                      * racist/disrespectful/inaccurate/misogynistic/homophobic/ageist/profane and therefore unacceptable to the commenter

                  ...resulting in a lengthy detour from the original motherfucking point of the diary and forcing reasonable people to choose between ignoring the offroad debate, or wading into the fray and thus contributing to the fucking derailment in the process.

                  I think we could expand that to cover just about every facet of this debacle from the beginining up to this point.

                  Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

                  by Goldfish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:23:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  it's also held up for respect (none)
                just not by the "host".... maybe that's not good enough... but I for one appreciate women's studies.

                there is no question about your voice being legitimate, the opinion of kos is just one opinion.

                It is the opinion that gets to kill and ad or not... but other than that... it is not automatically the voice of legitimacy.

            •  Thanks, but (4.00)
              I wouldn't be an equal voice here.  Much as I have loved this site I simply can't do that to myself.

              But I wish you peace.  My day was always brighter when you wrote.

              •  the best reason you should stay, sandblaster (4.00)
                there are lots of places where you do not have an equal voice, but owe it to yourself to stay and speak up anyway.

                what if the Dems in Congress felt this way--since I am not an equal voice, I'll pack up my marbles and go home?

                what if the early leaders of the civil rights movement felt this way?

                and yes, what if the early feminists felt this way?  they were outnumbered a lot worse than 60/40.  they faced a lot worse of an uphill climb than the women on this site.

                Beside, look at the parallel to the big picture.  Rove/Dobson/Norquist et al hope that progressive Democrats will start to feel this way about the country in general.  they want us to believe that because we are in the electoral minority (according to Diebold) we have no voice.  they want us to feel discouraged by this and voluntarily remove ourselves from the political discourse.

                there are times when, even though you are outnumbered 60/40, you still make your voice heard because that is your only hope of eventually shifting the odds in your favor.

                please stay.

                do not silence yourself at a time like this.

                Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

                by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:24:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Great thoughts (4.00)
                  but I'll find a place where I can be effective and respected.  I still have a lot of work left in me- I just can't do it here.

                  I'm glad that some can, though.  For me, after the dismal election results and all the other morale losses I want to go where I can get some positive feelings!

                  Best of luck to you.

              •  Visit where you are comfortable, of course (n/t) (none)

                "pay any price, bear any burden"

                by JimPortlandOR on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:38:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Meteor (4.00)
              To me, the site may be called DailyKos, but it's really DailyMeteorBlades (though there isn't enough of you), Daily42, DailyCosmicDebris, DailyDCDemocrat, DailyArmando, Dailyjsmdlawyer, DailyRevel, etc., etc. Otherwise, I'd probably leave.

              There is nothing more stimulating than a case where everything goes against you. -- Sherlock Holmes

              by Carnacki on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:56:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  DailyHunter (4.00)
                That is one diarist who can write. I shake my head sometimes how well some pros can express themselves time and time again.

                This whole argument has also got me wondering why it is I visit DKos.  In the beginning it was for the combination of stories not being covered elsewhere and the outstanding writers. Recently it is for the detailed news coverage on issues.

                The quality of the frontpage diaries has gone down and I hope that is just a cyclical thing.    

          •  The pies have driven you away? (none)
            Please, it's all rather trivial in the greater scheme of things.  And besides, this site is much much bigger than both this issue and the person who putatively runs it.

            "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

            by fishhead on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:17:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  People here often say that dkos is Markos's site, (4.00)
            and yes, he created it, he pays for it, he runs it.  But the content of the site has very little to do with Kos.  The content is made up of all the people who write diaries and post comments.  Staying is not condoning what kos said.  I had the same urge to leave, but then I realized that the opinions of any one person here, even Kos's opinion, aren't really that important.  The site is made up of many people's opinions, some very interesting and informed, others not.  I either respond to or ignore  the uninformed/ignorant posts, and that's what you should do with Kos's diary.  His opinion is really no more important than anyone else's here.
        •  Page (4.00)
          Oh I love a little T&A as much as anyone. But I don't like our host going off on people like that.

          There is nothing more stimulating than a case where everything goes against you. -- Sherlock Holmes

          by Carnacki on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:46:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sometimes they need it (2.40)
            And this is just idiotic.

            "Oooh nooo an ad with women being.. sexual!! In a humorous way but sexual!! EVIL MEN MUST DIE"

            UGH. Idiotic. We've got people dying for nothing in Iraq. A party in shambles. A looming economic disaster. A thousand other serious things to consider. But we've hurt some loons widdle feewings so we should all stop and flagilate ourselves Roll
            Ever wonder where the democratic party got the "wimp" reputation?

            The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

            by cdreid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:02:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How can you not get it? (none)
              The ad isn't about women "being sexual." The fact that you can't distinguish between women being sexual and women behaving sexually for the enjoyment of men is what the problem is.

              Personally, the ad didn't bother me and I don't care what ads Kos runs or doesn't run. It's his frigging site;  if I find something offensive I'll either not click on it or just go elsewhere.  No biggie.  

              What annoys me is the seemingly clueless conflation of "women's enjoying their sexuality" with "men enjoying women's sexuality."  BIG difference.  Guys find the ad a turn-on, and therefore that is the sum total of human sexuality? Here's a news flash: merely turning guys on is not the be-all end-all of female sexuality.

              And, for the record, I am heartily sick of basically being told to "sit down and shut up; we've got more important things to deal with" when women's issues are being discussed.

              •  Not asking you to shut up (none)
                Heck no. Raise cain. Get your point across.

                Dont expect people who Strongly disagree with you to be quiet and nod their heads when you do though.

                This ad was parody. But for those who dont agree with that then let us assume it is sexual. Is it immoral any time men "enjoy womens sexuality"? You boycott the fashion industry, beer, wine, the auto industry, the sports industry, Friends and every other network show, every angelina jolie, salma hayek et al movie, britney spears, shania twain, faith hill and every other attractive singers music.. etc ..etc ...etc ...etc.....

                Here's a news flash: merely turning guys on is not the be-all end-all of female sexuality.
                Who said that? Anywhere? Ever? Read my posts. They say exactly the opposite. Read the BIG post... its criticism of people who HATE women being sexual (which your post im sure unintentionally seems to do)

                And once again. Raise hell. Givem heck. Get your voice heard. Argue your point. Who do you think is going to do it? And why the HELL would you listen to anyone who told you to sit down and shut up?????

                The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                by cdreid on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:54:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think you misunderstood me (none)
                  Is it immoral any time men "enjoy womens sexuality"

                  Absolutely not. But if men's enjoyment of women's sexuality is used as the definition of what women's sexuality is, then, yes, that bugs me.

                  You say you are criticizing people who hate women "being sexual." But people who are criticizing the ad aren't criticizing it because it depicts women "being sexual." They are criticizing it because it depicts women "behaving sexually for the enjoyment of men."  And the inference I drew from your failure to distinguish between the two is that, in your opinion, "women behaving sexually for the enjoyment of men = women being sexual." As if the definition of "female sexuality" is "whether or not it turns a guy on. Period."

                  Personally, I think the ad is stupid but I'm not particularly offended by it. Except by its stupidity.

                  And why the HELL would you listen to anyone who told you to sit down and shut up?????

                  Do you really think I would?  Nevertheless, it's irritating to see women who are raising valid issues be repeatedly swatted down as though they are somehow detracting from the "bigger picture" simply by daring to complain.

                  •  You arent (none)
                    in the group screaming here. You're theorising what we who are sick of the bullshit are thinking. And your theory is wrong.

                    Go read my big post on the point.. you'll get the picture. The real hidden truth here is that some want to censor Dkos of anything that doesnt fit their worldview. Some of us dont feel the urge to deal with it. That makes them crazy. Not our problem.

                    The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                    by cdreid on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:59:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  no shit! (none)
          i lived in germany for the better part of middle school.  like any teenager, i spent summers at the pool.  

          europe is nowhere near as prudish as america and women are allowed to be topless.  at a public swimming pool, the beaches of the mediterranean...they just don't care.

          and about amsterdam:  i got lost wandering around one night and ended up in the RLD.  i walked past giant storefront windows inside of which women in lingerie lounged about, making occasional eye contact with people passing.  

          what struck me most was the expression of pure and utter boredom most of them wore!  i laughed my ass off for two blocks!

        •  Wrong (none)
          the comments got into how women show their breasts as the result of our male-dominated society.

          Wrong. (Society is male-dominated, yes.)  

          Believe me, most of the people who posted on that thread should never, ever go to Europe.

          I live in the the UK, I love it, and I like Holland .  I like the tolerance and free speech we have here in the UK, and the lack of a religious right.  If I want to put up with exploitative pictures of bare-breasted women I can buy the British national newspapers that publish them, but I don't have to.  And I don't.  If The Guardian started publishing pictures like that I'd have to consider buying The Independent instead (and so on), but I would also complain about them doing it.  

          And that's what some women here are doing ; but not only because of the ad, not even mainly because of it, but because of Kos's bloody awful "response" to complaints about it.

          Here's their new blog:

          women kossacks

      •  No, it was about sex (none)
        And how some people believe that expressions of sexuality are degrading.  And how those people freak out when they see an ad that features two women in skimpy clothing.

        Cleavage!  The horror!

    •  People are too uptight in this country (none)
      Sex is good.  Sex is fun.  Everyone should go out and have lots of it.

      I happen to like nice breasts and butts.   So does my lesbian roomate.  On the other hand, in all fairness to straight women kossacks and gay male kossacks, there should be also be an ad involving hot, sweaty construction workers with six pack abs and, um, supsicious "packages" swinging sledgehammers and such.

      Politics is so much better when there's sex. - Louis XIV

      by goblue72 on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:23:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Prostitution is legal in Canada too. (4.00)
      Completely off the topic Page, but were you able to take your guns with you? Just curious about the laws there.

      Speaking of laws, I want to by a Kahr PM9 9mm with the black-coated slide but I can't because only the uncoated model is approved for sale in California. Funny how a little bit of common sense would make gun people hate we Democrats a bit less.

    •  offended by context, not content (4.00)
      But Page -- without getting into the right or wrong of the ad or the reaction to it -- presumably the Gilligan's island girls weren't having a halfnaked pie fight in order to protest, or be liberated, or to have fun, or to feel sexy. They were doing it at the command of men for the tittilation of men. People offended over the ad -- though maybe not toward the end if what you write upthread is correct -- were presumably offended not by the content but by the context. So I don't think your points are exactly analogous. Wait, I don't think they're at all analogous.

      Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

      by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:30:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok, point taken (4.00)
        but see my response to sandblaster.

        The diary rapidly turned into "women show their breasts because the patriarchy wants that".

        Hence my comment here.

      •  Its about sex and the Puritans (4.00)
        We still can't seem to shed our Puritanical side in this country, on either the Left OR the Right.

        Were these women hired in order to titillate men?  Sure - but the fact remains that they were HIRED.  Not forced, not coerced.  Its a free market, and people are free to do what they want.   I don't see anyone here protesting how Chippendale's is offensive and degrading to men.  I don't see anyone complaining that Brat Pitt running around in Troy flexing his abs wasn't offensive because it treated Brad Pitt like a sexual object.

        I have no problem with any of these examples.  We ARE sexual objects.  The human body is a beautiful thing, beautiful in part for its sexuality.  

        Or, to put it in more vulgar terms: Fucking is Fun.

        Politics is so much better when there's sex. - Louis XIV

        by goblue72 on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:41:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh Jesus (none)
          I was just talking about how Page's analogy was a little off. Quit this hair trigger pile-on.

          Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

          by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:06:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Um, no. (none)
            Correct that - abso-fucking-lutely no.

            You state: "halfnaked pie fight in order to protest, or be liberated, or to have fun, or to feel sexy. They were doing it at the command of men for the tittilation of men."

            So presumably, its only ok to be half naked having a pie fight in order to protest or to be "liberated" or have fun or feel sexy themselves.  But not in order to turn men on? That's just bullshit.

            And this attitude that they are doing it at the "command of men"?  What, are the directors of the ad standing around with whips and chains forcing them to do it?

            You know why those actresses did it?  Because they got PAID for it.  Its a JOB.  Same reason a Calvin Klein model gets paid to prance his meatstick around in a pair of tighty whiteys.  Part of being sexually liberated means being able to do whatever you want with your body without having to suffer the scorn of the sanctimony police.  

            Politics is so much better when there's sex. - Louis XIV

            by goblue72 on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:18:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, then, where are the (4.00)
              tighty-whitey ads of men on the Kos site?

              Oh, there aren't any.

              See, it starts with the context -- and the rather necessary situation of something being on the site before someone can complain about it being on the site. . . .

              "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

              by Cream City on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:24:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Squawk squawk squawk. (none)
              Is this just some lizard brain reflex with some people? Christ...

              I wanted to say this the first time, but I was too lazy: FUCK OFF. I was just making a point (to Page) about how this ad was constructed at the behest of men and for men (or, I suppose, some lesbians) and so it had a different vector of expression from what Page was talking about. So you fucking flip out and hypocritically decide to lecture me on the "sanctimony police." Sorry I didn't immediately and wholly fall into your dogma. I don't really care. As I stated to another one of your ilk Page got my point so whatever.

              Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

              by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:25:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So what it was constructed for men (none)
                So fricking what.  Yes, the ad is meant to titillate men.  There is nothing wrong with that.  THAT is why people thing your and other posters protestations are sanctimonious.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with titillation.  Unless, one is prude, I guess.

                Politics is so much better when there's sex. - Louis XIV

                by goblue72 on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:28:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's all about Page's post (4.00)
                  BUT THAT WASN'T PAGE'S POINT. AND THAT IS & WAS THE POINT.

                  "My and other posters," indeed. You're just showing how reflexive and clueless you're being. Look at my other posts on this topic. See if I'm being a prude, see if I'm railing against the ad. I'm being pretty damn neutral and despite your lizardbrained need to react against what I had to say to Page I'm not the illusory prudish chimera you apparently need me to be in order to feel that your argument is justified.

                  Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

                  by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:34:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  ridiculous (4.00)
        They were doing it at the command of men for the tittilation of men.

        They were doing it because they were getting paid.  You know, earning a living.

        And as a man, I decline to apologize for things that tittilate me and I reject the notion that tittilation is a bad thing.

        •  Oh Jesus (none)
          I was just talking about how Page's analogy was a little off. Quit this hair trigger pile-on.

          Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

          by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:06:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Self-created pile-on (none)
            They were doing it at the command of men for the tittilation of men.

            I'm am totally in favor of gender equality.  Period.

            But your statement makes my blood boil.

            Command?

            You're making a bad situation worse, IMO.

            "pay any price, bear any burden"

            by JimPortlandOR on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:44:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hey, The Show Trial Went Your Way! (4.00)
              Fine. Fine fine fine.

              • Workers are allowed complete creative freedom and aren't commanded to do anything.
              • And no one in Hollywood has ever been pressured into doing something they regret based on career considerations.

              I, Addison, declare both these things "true" and apologize for my statement. Next time I'll check with the int'l registry of acceptable semantics and clear my post ahead of time.

              Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

              by Addison on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:10:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Employment "Freedom" (none)
                No, actors do not have creative freedom, and yes, they are 'directed' to do certain things (often with many 'takes' to get it right)

                I assume you are being snarky instead of uninformed.  

                The actors, and directors sign a contract.  They are free to not sign.  

                I've been instructed to do many things in employment, and I've done them.  I would be free to not do them, and get another job.

                I don't see what these actors do is any different than what millions of other workers do.

                Next time I'll check with the int'l registry of acceptable semantics and clear my post ahead of time.

                Spare us, please.  You are not helping your 'case'.

                "pay any price, bear any burden"

                by JimPortlandOR on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:19:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Ridiculous is right... (4.00)
          All of this is getting extremely ridiculous.

          I haven't posted many comments in quite awhile but feel compelled to at the moment.  I'm so glad that goblue72 agrees that "fucking is fun", wow, howdy, yee-haw!  Shall we turn dkos into a Porn site now because all the men here love titties so much?

          Sexuality is a beautiful thing but does that mean all women should be objectified?  Oh but what am I talking about?  All those hookers CHOSE to be HOOKERS and that's FREEDOM of choice which = democracy. DUH!  I am such an idiot!

          Can we get real please?  Women's issues are not a joke and this isn't about trying oh-so-hard not to offend the feminists. It's about espousing PROGRESSIVE values... and, the last time I checked objectifying women wasn't a progressive value.

          Look, I haven't even seen the ad, I probably wouldn't be offended by it but a lot of the comments on this thread are extremely lame and OH GAWD DON'T SAY THAT WORD.... sexist.

          bush is a weed in the garden of democracy.

          by miss love on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:15:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We are all objects (none)
            As I have posted elsewhere, I have no problem with treating the human body as an object - and a beautiful, hot, sexy object it is.

            Merely because I can appreciate the beauty, or hottness, of a person's body doesn't mean I will treat that PERSON as an object.

            This whole schtick about "objectification of women" is so goddamn tiring at this point, completely stuck in an ideology that is 20 years to old at this point.

            Politics is so much better when there's sex. - Louis XIV

            by goblue72 on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:26:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And you look for titillation on DKos? (4.00)
          It's about context.

          Context.

          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

          by Cream City on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:25:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  interesting. (none)
        Do you know these women, or were you involved in the production of this ad? How do you know that they weren't doing it to have fun or feel sexy; how do you know that they were doing it at the command of men, or for the tittilation of men? I've seen a few people make assumptions about these women, and I'm somewhat curious as to why they do it--some sort of projection?

        As for context, The inappropriate context that I saw was just that this ad popped up here on Daily Kos--I'd expect to see it show up on, say, Comedy Central, or Monday Night Football, but not on CNN or MS-NBC. And although Daily Kos is a blog, most of the time it's a fairly serious blog devoted to political discussion.

        •  Oh Jesus (none)
          I was just talking about how Page's analogy was a little off. Quit this hair trigger pile-on.

          Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

          by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:06:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Jesus can sign up for his own account. (none)
            If you do not feel like standing by what you say, you certainly do not have to do so. I missed 'this hair trigger pile-on', though. Is that similar to pasting a meaningless, boilerplate comment in reply to several unrelated posts, even though it adequately addresses none of their points? If you plan to do so again, don't do so for my sake--in my opinion, it doesn't add anything to the thread.
            •  Whatevz (none)
              No, it adequately -- for my needs -- addresses all the replies and I'm lazy. I was writing to Page about how maybe her post wasn't directly analogous. I'm sorry you were upset by the fact that I didn't really feel like answering some squawking about the delineation I drew, but honestly it's a bunch of irrelevant hooey. Page got my point about her post. I don't give a damn if anyone else does.

              Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

              by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:21:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Then don't address it. (none)
                I won't be offended if you don't reply to me; most of the time no one does, really. I will be annoyed if you reply to me and then don't address my points at all--then you might as well just not reply, it'd be more respectful. Anyhow, maybe that's just me. But in the future I'll reserve the right to not 'give a damn' about whatever 'irrelevant hooey' you might be 'squawking' about. In the meantime, enjoy not defending your private conversations with Page on this public blog. Cheers.
                •  CHEERZ! (none)
                  What, I'm supposed to email or write longhand to her about a misplaced analogy in one of her posts? Get real.

                  Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

                  by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:42:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yay! (none)
                    No, I placed no requirement on you to do any of that. (Although sending an e-mail would have made it much harder for any outsider to comment on it.) As I originally said... "enjoy not defending your private conversations with Page on this public blog"--remember, I would have favored your not replying to me in the first place, in the way that you did. So I'm being entirely consistent here. If you don't want to talk to anyone else, then don't. :)
              •  Lazy (none)
                And disrespectful. This quite frankly is troll territory you're moving into. If you wanted to respond only to Page, then her e-mail is in her profile. But if you post it here, other people can and will respond to it, and the least you could do is politely say you don't want to discuss it further, rather then throw your hands up, and whine about some non-existent pile on, while reposting boilerplate.

                But it is good to see you think so little of other members that their concerns and questions over one of your comments are nothing more to you then "squawking."

                I don't know if you're having a bad knight, you always act like a condescending jerkstore, but enjoy your zero, you earned it.

                Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

                by Goldfish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:37:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So Am I A Jerkstore Clerk Or Manager Or What? (none)
                  Again, beautiful swooping on your part. You even waited until the whole dustup was completely over before you swooped. Good job, that's the way it's done.

                  You stole pb's word! "Boilerplate" is pretty distinctive, so it's pretty obvious where you got it. You shoulda at least have gone to thesaurus to get your own.

                  And I accuse people of squawking when it looks like their just being self-righteous for blovation's sake. For instance right now I see someone who I think is squawking. Indeed, I'm looking at that person's post right now... Who could it be? I will refrain from "outing" the person as a squawker for now, out of respect for your sensibilities.

                  Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

                  by Addison on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:53:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please (none)
                    I logged on at a quarter to one and spent the time between then and my responses you reading though the whole fucking slew of comments between here and the top. As far as boilerplate, I didn't steal that, it was what occurred when I saw your posts even before I saw it in someone else's thread. What can I say, great minds think alike.

                    As far as your last paragraph, I'm not even going to bother pointing out the irony here.

                    I find your hostility and aggression over this both puzzling, and very uninteresting. If you
                    make a statement in a public forum, be prepared to defend it if other people happen to take issue with it. If you are not ready to do that, don't make that statement, and for God's sake, if you do make the statement, don't get all pissy with people who call you on, just because you're to lazy, arrogant, craven, or whatever the Hell it is you are, to defend your work.

                    Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

                    by Goldfish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:05:10 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Suggestion Box Closed For Repairs (none)
                      No, in the future I'll still make the statement. The statement was directed at one person, that person understood, I don't have to defend it to anyone else. And, in the future, I won't defend it to anyone else, should a similar circumstance arise.

                      And if a whole bunch of people decide to get "pissy" themselves and jump on a little tangent to that singular point I'm making -- despite measures taken WITHIN THE POST to say I'm not talking about the broader aspects of the debate -- I'll do much the same thing I did tonight.

                      It was so goddamn minor, when you think about it. I reposted the same response to three similar complaints, it was, IMO, apt for each and I didn't see the point of slightly rewording it for each person cause I'm lazy.

                      You flip out and you weren't even remotely involved in the spat. You just inserted yourself. You say I can choose to do this or choose to do that, well you could've chosen to just rate me and stay out of this, right? You could've chosen to do NOTHING for that matter. You could've done any number of things to not extend and reopen this conflict, but you didn't. You squawked. So whatever.

                      Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

                      by Addison on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:12:55 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  If I could persuade you otherwise... (none)
                  No zeroes, if you don't mind; Addison and I managed to settle our little misunderstanding civilly, and without getting into any sort of retaliatory comment rating war, or anything similarly puerile. Personally I think it would have been better if she hadn't replied at all, and I see that your initial reaction is similar to what mine was. But I think your concern here is misplaced (and, if it comes down to it, probably mine was too), and in any case not really worthy of further discussion.

                  Of course, your posts and ratings are your own; this is merely my humble plea. Cheers.

                  •  While I appreciate (none)
                    You're call for restraint, Addison needs to learn some manners, and until he does I see no reason to change my rating. I don't know what his problem is, maybe he's just having a bad night. But that's no excuse for the way he's acting.

                    As for as rating wars goes, I'm not doing this because I agree with you. I can't even recall
                    what your comment was now (I know I read it, but I also read some 300+ other comments, so it kind of runs together). This is about demanding a modicum of civility and demanding people stand behind their statements.

                    With respect to your concerns, my rating stands.

                    Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

                    by Goldfish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:42:38 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Ooh (none)
              Fuck me. When you said "Jesus can sign up for his own account" I should have said, "looks like he's already been here, and turned water into WHINES." Oh well.

              Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

              by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:35:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  And you quit (none)
            Reposting the same thing over and over.

            It's bad enough you won't stand behind your statements when questioned about them, but you do it with a cut and past response? Could you show any less respect for the opinions of other users? Not only won't you address their comments but you respond to them with a boiler-plate blow of? Aw, Hell no.

            I was going to give the second one of these a two, and not rate the first one, but after seeing this, I'm sorry man, but you're getting a "one" for each of these condescending, unproductive blow offs.

            Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

            by Goldfish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:32:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  THANKS! (none)
              If there was a way to show less respect trust me: I would've done that. Anyway, I don't think there was.

              I've already resolved the "problem" with one poster -- without your assistance, imagine! -- and I still don't care what the others have to say. Really good of you to swoop in a moralize though. Thanks!

              It was a semantics problem with my use of the word "command." Clearly some people see command as something with chains and whips where I see it a lot more subtly. And some people think the choice actresses have to make is clear cut and one they make purely of their own volition, I think it's a lot more grey and tawdry than that.

              Anyway, the main point -- that Page's analogy was flawed -- wasn't even reliant on that semantics point and so the rapidfire complaints, in my view, were unneeded and mere reflexive "squawking" about a marginal tangent point.

              I'm not going to email Page about a little concern I have -- as you humorously suggested, though with a straight virtual face.

              I have a lot of 4's saved up. Go ahead and give every one of my posts on this thread a 0 if it makes you feel good and big, a saviour of decorum or something. I'm sure someone can find a semantic flaw in each of my posts on this thread, so you're really just cutting out the squawking middle man and getting right to the Mojo denunciation of my incredible rudeness of said squawking.

              Thanks again for all your help and input.

              Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

              by Addison on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:48:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you read the things you post (none)
                I don't care about Page's comment, or your semantic flaws or any of that. All I care about in this discussion is that you show a little respect and consideration for other users, something you seem incapable of doing.

                But, no enjoy those fours you have saved up. If this is how you're going to conduct yourself from now on, then you're going to need them.

                Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

                by Goldfish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:56:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Heh (3.25)
                  Heh, conducting myself like "this" is a large part of how I got them. The rest of the "4's" I got precisely by doing what you say I'm incapable of, which is respecting other users. I just didn't really feel like responding to a bunch of posts basically complaining about my use of the "command" word and a little niggling about the "tittilation" thing.

                  I will enjoy my fours though. I'm taking a four BATH right now...

                  Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

                  by Addison on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:00:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  The posts weren't about the actors (3.40)
          They were about the audience.

          The audience gets to complain about advertising.

          The advertised site gets to set standards, or not.

          But if it doesn't, it ought to anticipate complaints.

          That's how it always has been in the big, bad MSM.  And if the editors respond with snark, they can expect to get snarked back.

          And they can expect to lose audience, which can mean losing advertising, which is based on the size of the audience -- not the size of the mammaries in the ad.

          So -- we can only suppose that Kos is attempting to reduce the audience here to not have to go get as many ads.  It's working well, isn't it?

          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

          by Cream City on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:29:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  actors, and audience. (none)
            In Addison's post, she specifically mentioned the "Gilligan's island girls"--which made it about the actors. Which is what I was discussing, and others have discussed, including in the original Pie Fight diary. But apparently besides bashing them or ogling at them, no one really seems to be too interested in the two women in the ad after all. (Which seems impressively odd to me in a discussion about women and equality--don't marginalize women, except for these two? I'm sure it's just me.)

            As for advertising, I entirely agree with you; in fact, I made that point in the Pie Fight diaries myself, but no one commented on that--I guess no one could find a way to angrily reply to it, and fewer still wanted to discuss it. (or, more likely, it got overlooked because it was boring :)

            I don't know about Kos' motivations--personally I think he's expressing his opinions in an irate manner, without tact (which he admits). And he no doubt will lose some people over this. If the result of that is to have less 'Pie Fight' diaries, I think he'll be thrilled; if, instead, the result is to have more 'RINOs' supported by women's groups against 'DINOs' (or what have you) then he'll probably be feeling pretty stupid.

      •  Their own choice (none)
        To imply that they participiated in this at the command of men implies that they did not have a choice in the matter.  They tried out for a reality show, out of their own volition.  These shows are all about sexual titillation.  I am sure they did not choose to participate in this show in order to protest or be liberated.  And even more, they're dressing up like Ginger and MaryAnn.  Informed consent.  That's the real context there.
      •  quibble (none)
        They were doing it at the command of men for the tittilation of men.

        "in exchange for money" != "at the command of"

        Nobody lends money to a man with a sense of humor -- Peter Tork, "Head"

        by Field Marshall Stack on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:46:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Boobs? (none)
      Boobs are dirty naughty! Dr. Dobson says so!
    •  asdf (3.25)
      And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site.

      Go ahead.
      I look forward to your response defending this too.
      Call it your millionandonethpossiblediary.

      Christ. "....on this site".
      Childish at best.  

      Christine

    •  Ahhhh, PP (none)
      you are reminding me of my Henry Miller phase in Amsterdam, the good ole days.  Oh shit, I brought up Henry Miller, now I will be labelled a mysogynist.  BTW, I am only 3 hours from you by train.

      "There must be some way out of here, said the Joker to the Thief" -Bob Dylan is my god

      by Jeffersonian Democrat on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:30:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can't.Stop.Laughing... (3.00)
    oh...it hurts
  •  Ignoring Things (4.00)
    Sometimes, the best way to kill something you disagree with is to ignore it.

    Then perhaps, kos, you should ask yourself why you seem to have such trouble ignoring the criticism of feminists...or even replying to it in a reasonably polite manner.

  •  Well, this member of the so-called (4.00)
    "sanctimonious women's studies set" (oh, that has got to be a t-shirt to go with the one with the quote that women's studies is a "fad" -- a quote from 35 years ago. . . .) missed all the fun because I was working.  

    So I missed all the fun, and only have allusions to what went on in several diaries mentioning the "Pie Fight" diary -- but never linking to it.
    And the search function . . . well, that just doesn't seem to work, on weekends or otherwise.

    So does anyone have the link easily available -- so I can go see what is so worth discussing yet again . . . yet ignoring as well?  

    And then I may have to be back here to ask how the number of ad hits proves a principle -- as I would hope that if it had only 5,000 hits, it wouldn't affect the principle of the thing . . . or maybe if front-paging it again gets the record to 10,000 hits, it becomes incontrovertible . . . or maybe I'll just go watch Paris Hilton wash a car and know that the First Amendment is safe . . . or something. . . .

    "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

    by Cream City on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:21:27 PM PDT

  •  Villify Me for Being Offended, Will You? (none)
    I am!  Nurtz to you, Kos!

    But I notice my mouse pointer isn't.  The little pointy finger keeps getting stuck in the cleavage.

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:22:30 PM PDT

  •  Sex is everywhere (none)
    So why should Kos be any different. Man's got to make his money. Got to keep the site going. Leave it to the Rethuglicans to be the morality cops.

    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead

    by makemefree on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:23:28 PM PDT

  •  I'm all for sex (4.00)
    and I'm all for stuff like that - ie quasi-soft porn and above - but I don't know Kos, your post is a little harsh.

    I don't know what kind of correspondance you've been having, but there's more diplomatic ways to settle disagreements.

    Visit the web's premier blog about British politics and society, Transatlanticism

    by Ben P on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:24:35 PM PDT

  •  Well, that's it. I'm staying. (none)
    I came to the KOS for the communal solution to answers via logical, albeit often empassioned, debate.

    Sometimes, the best way to kill something you disagree with is to ignore it.

    As I quoted in my diary earlier today:

    True wit is nature to advantage dressed, what oft was thought, but never so well expressed. -- Alexander Pope

    I 'll stay for the True Wit.

  •  mmmmmm, pie. (2.00)
    And chicks.
  •  I just ignored it, (none)
    until I read this article.  

    Thought the show was lame-o from the concept.  The other side seems to be great at generating interest in it though, guess I'll go watch and find out what all the shouting is about.... (yawn)

    ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

    by NevDem on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:25:01 PM PDT

  •  Parse. (4.00)
    I know what Kos is talking about re the "sanctimonious women's studies" types, but I wish he hadn't phrased it that way. While "those types" are often in Women's Studies, many in Women's Studies are not that type, which Kos' phrasing sort of implied.

    I can understand the reasonable wish to not have ads with "adolescent fantasies" about women on a site that supposes to be gender neutral -- most of the time -- and where said ad reinforces an idea of trivialization and marginalization of women from the "big table" of politics. A lot of people -- female and male -- are against the ads placement and for what I think is a good reason, if not compelling enough to take the ad down.

    I can also understand how some people -- again, female AND male -- got way too preachy and sanctimonious, and blew the ad's weight and importance out of proportion. These people are our Dobsons.

    I wish Kos had parsed these two groups --  as I have, sort of -- before sort of lumping them together and dismissing them wholesale.

    Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

    by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:26:41 PM PDT

    •  Since we are all sharing our opinions tonight (4.00)
      I sould just say ditto here..but I have never been one to shut up...liking the sound of my own voice so much.

      The situation with this ad happened to me at work last week...okay not exactly the same, but the basics are similar.  

      I made a call that I thought was right and as manager I have the authorty to do so.

      A few people in my department thought I was wrong, and instead of mentioning it and droping it, as it wan't a big deal...they talked to all there co-workers about it and said...see he is wrong.

      It got to the point where we were wasting tie on something stupid, and I was very annoyed.

      I sent out an email explaining my position, and said some things that were insensitive.  (MAybe becasue other had snet out emails saying some things about my desision making that were insensitive and I wanted to get back at them.)

      Up to this point I think we are perfencly parrallel here.

      Next I had to send another email appoligizing for loosing my cool and the way I said what I did...but not for my main point.

      Now of course Kos isn't our boss and may or may not feel like he could have said it better, but it will be interesting to see where this goes.

      Midwest Center for American Values - Progressive ideas in an easy to swallow pill.

      by ETinKC on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:51:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's funny! (4.00)
    I've seen the ad elsewheres and thought it hilarious.  And yes, I'm female and still thought it funny. People lighten up.  Okay!  Stop being offended.  You know women, there are just as many jokes flying around about the stupidity of males, that we can handle this about women.  Get over it!
  •  Ah Shit (4.00)
    And I was just about to go to bed...guess I'll go get a beer instead and strat hitting F5..this is going to be interesting.

    What we need is a poll.

    a)  I like the Ad and Agree with Kos completely.
    B)  Hate the Ad bu Kos is right
    C) HAte the Ad Kos is Wrong Completely.
    D) Hate or Like the Ad, but Kos is being a jerk.
    E)  I hear there is a war going on!

    Midwest Center for American Values - Progressive ideas in an easy to swallow pill.

    by ETinKC on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:28:21 PM PDT

  •  I Saw This Coming (4.00)
    When I saw the ad on the side, I knew this was coming. I just don't get what the problem is. It's a wacky add with 2 beautiful women playing around in a spoof of Gilligan's Island. That's it. There's no nudity or sex.

    I am male but I've never gotten why some feminists see any expression of female sexuality as demeaning. Women are beautiful & sexual. What's wrong with them expressing that if they want to?

  •  I' m down with it (4.00)
    Count me as one of the 8000. However, I think I acted as a good progressive should. Attracted by the photo (ooohhmmooommaa) I clicked and read. Suddenly realizing that this was in fact a gratuitous sexual solicitation by TBS I went against my worse judgement and refrained from pulling the trigger on the video as I convinced myself that I wouldn't fall into T. Turner's desperate attempt to entice with the use of lesbian sex. I said now,now PP40, there is a time and place for everything. I briefly considered the appro'ness of this ad on DK but thought to myself-"it's this kinda shit that will by the bullets for the revoultion!!"
    I'm with you KOS

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will."-Frederick Douglas

    by powerplay40 on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:29:39 PM PDT

  •  Ohhhh my... (none)
    ...i saw Kos's bristles...

    Nice ad.  I don't see what the hubbub is all about, looks like a friggin' beer commercial.

    Certainly doesn't make me want to watch the show, though and that's what it's supposed to be about...blah.

    People criticizing kos for putting the ad on the site, screw off.  kos' comments exactly.

    •  to clarify... (none)
      and that "screw off" doesn't mean "shut up".  voice your opinion as you please, as long as you don't mandate others follow it.  realize it is just that...your opinion.

      and that ad isn't nearly as bad as the one halfway down on the right on this site.

      ULTIMATE FITNESS PROGRAM - BEWARE OF WEIGHT TRAINING - AS A I MAKE LOVE TO THE FLOOR

      Why is this on every right wing site...?  The picture of that BALD GUY rubbing his groin on the ground gets me every time...

  •  sigh... (none)
    I read diaries like that and think about the FCC and how conservatives want to censor any and everything that doesn't conform to thier view of how everyone else should be living or what not because its what they want, never mind anyone else and thier opinion.

    Next thing you know someone will get all pissy because there is a picture of two people with one person sneezing... OMG they might blow boggers on them!

    Of all the things to get annoyed by. sometimes I wonder...

  •  Throwing a pie at Kos (3.96)
    I'm frankly appalled at this entry. Sometimes I wonder if someone kidnapped the real Kos a few months back and has been posting under his name lately.

    In any case, this entry is terrible, just terrible. Kos has gone too far, and an apology is in order.

    The offending portion is, of course, this unimportant, gratuitous swipe:

    And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site.

    You know, Kos, I agreed with you up until this point about the pie fight ad. It's not a big deal, and the people who think it is are, in my opinion, wrong to think that. Just because two women engage in a pie fight doesn't mean it is sexist (although more often than not, it does).

    But to answer a silly criticism with an awful generalization, an attack on your allies, is really indefensible.

    I cannot see any way in which Kos' comment is defensible. He is demeaning - very openly - the "women's studies set." For what fucking purpose? Hmm?

    I'm not sure what it is about that comment that bothers me more - the anti-intellectual nature of it, or the anti-woman nature of it. It's loaded with both, unfortunately.

    Women's studies is a fascinating discipline. And much of the new work coming out of it is very much not in keeping with the stereotypical view of academic feminism that Kos has so obviously bought into. I'm not a women's studies student myself, so others can probably speak better to this, but the discipline to me has adopted a much more productive attitude towards popular culture. It has shed the black and white, oppressive or liberatory lens that it used to use when looking at culture. And while the discipline is still very much concerned with calling out sexism, it does so in a much more defensible and sensible way.

    For Kos to not know this, and to make an attack based on this ignorance, is shameful. Simply shameful. And worse, it combined with his attacks on NARAL and other groups does to me provide a legitimate basis to question his overall commitment to the issue of women's rights.

    So that's why I've titled this comment as I have. I'm throwing a pie at Kos partially because I think he stepped way over the line here, but also to call him out. He has made a number of attacks on feminists and the women's rights movement lately that should make the blood boil of many folks here - including men such as myself who believe women's rights are important. Kos needs to spell out what he does think the place of women's rights - and, apparently, of academia - is in the Democratic reform movement.

    Until then, I'll just sit here with my mouth agape at what ass Kos has made of himself. I'd like to think Kos is being subtle, and showing the critics of the pie ad what real sexism looks like. Unfortunately, I don't think he posted this entry with that sense of irony. For shame.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:31:29 PM PDT

    •  You are correct (4.00)
      that Kos is back at least 15 years in what has been going on in the WS field.  

      But yes, he's behind a couple of centuries in the theory and practice of persuasion -- unless, of course, what has happened here is that the recent increase to the site of women participants is what happened in recent months . . . and the purpose of the recent posts is to persuade us to leave.:-)

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:38:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well said, Eugene (none)
      Sums it up very well.  I'm pretty disappointed.
    •  Colin Powell (4.00)
      Condi Rice....window dressing for the Repulican Party...atleast that's how I always perceived it. You know, use them as props for the Republican party . To show how "progessive" they are regarding minorities. But after reading some of the comments in this thread I'm beginning to wonder if women don't play the same role in the Democratic Party...window dressing..a sham.

      "And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site"...Rush would be so proud.

      GWB will pry my 20 year old son from my cold dead fingers.

      by Momagainstthedraft on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:40:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Like it or not, sex sells. (none)
    That's just human nature. You can fight against it, and best of luck with that. Or, you can use it to your advantage. Given the powerful and nearly impossible to ignore nature of sexualized imagery, we should, in fact, be looking for ways to use it to advance the progressive agenda. Although, I would concur, hopefully in a perhaps more tasteful fashion than the pie fight.

    Al Queada is a faith-based initiative.

    by drewfromct on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:32:04 PM PDT

  •  Offensive? (4.00)
    Yes, and tacky and degrading to all of us.

    And I haven't even clicked through to see the rest of it.

    Look, is this a serious site for serious discussion of serious issues or isn't it? What on earth is wrong with setting some standards? It's as if I turned on PBS and got E! instead. Ugh.

    BTW, these loud and over-the-top attacks against critics smacks of defensiveness and a guilty conscience. I guess the political ads just don't pay enough.

    And isn't there anything else we can talk about? What, did the war finally end and nobody told me?

    •  On running the ad? (none)
      Hmmm, is it beyond what you would see on television?

      Cuz kos needs to make money.

      So I think it is easy to say pull the ad - but who pays for that?

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:47:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure that it's really about the ad... (4.00)
        at this point.  

        It appears that people who question the ad (sanctimoniously even) are being chastised while the testosterone junkies run around and bang on their chests.

        I guess it's not about the ad but more about the response to people who don't like it.

        bush is a weed in the garden of democracy.

        by miss love on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:27:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here's some "other deserving bloggers" (4.00)
    who don't consider WS "sanctimonious" -- a list recently on a WS listserv . . . where, btw, we have a lot of humor, too, so I think I just have to post a couple of Kos' quotes like this one.:-)

    So since all advertising is a public good, as well we know now from Kos . . . if anyone else would enjoy a less testeronic set, see:

    Blog rings: http://www.ringsurf.com/netring?action=stats&ring=girlsbloguk
    http://ringsaround.net/womenbloggers/
    http://www.ringsurf.com/netring?ring=carla;action=list

    Blogher Conference: http://www.blogher.org/

    The F-Word Blog (UK): http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/index

    BROG research group: http://www.blogninja.com/

    RIMA (Argentina): http://mujeresabordo.blogspot.com/

    Bitch PhD: http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/

    Into the Blogosphere (University of Minnesota): http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/

    Lois Scheidt (working on her PhD in Information Studies at IU): http://www.professional-lurker.com <http://www.professional-lurker.com>

    Netwoman: http://netwomen.ca/Blog/

    Multi-author blogs on gender and computing: http://www.misbehaving.net/> http://www.genderandcomputing.no/

    Majikthise: http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/

    Pandagon (2-person blog...the girl is Amanda): http://www.pandagon.net/

    Pacific Views: http://www.pacificviews.org/

    Body and Soul: http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/blog/

    Talk Left: http://www.talkleft.com/

    Rox Populi!: http://roxanne.typepad.com/rantrave/

    Blondesense: http://blondesense.blogspot.com/

    Echidne of the Snakes: http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/

    Sisyphus Shrugged: http://www.livejournal.com/users/jmhm/

    Shakespeare's Sister: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/

    And here are the blogs I listed on my initial email:

    http://kaye.trammell.com/blog/index.html

    http://blogresearch.com/ref.htm

    http://www.livejournal.com/community/_wehavebrains_/

    http://feministing.com <http://feministing.com>

    http://culturecat.net/node/305

    http://msmusings.net <http://msmusings.net>

    "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

    by Cream City on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:33:08 PM PDT

  •  When you're done patting yourself on the back (4.00)
    perhaps you'd like to take a minute to address the tone of that post.

    I noticed the ad, it gave me pause.  I didn't think you'd be running ads for soft porn (which it seemed at first glance) so I looked closer, and realized it must be from that Gilligan spoof.  I wasn't offended.  I didn't write you any nasty emails.  The end.

    I'm going to assume that the emails you got were pretty nasty to merit the condescending, self-important tone you took in your post.  
    For my part, the only thing I found offensive was your characterization (and pre-emptive baiting) of the "sanctimonious women's studies set".

    A few days ago, someone writing some kind of sociology paper asked about biases/discrimination on this site.  I was rather puzzled at the number of people listing "gender discrimination" as a problem.  I now understand what those posters were commenting on.

    I disagree with previous posters that your comments took "balls".  Self-congratulatory potshots don't take require anything laudable. Show all the T&A you want, but since you yourself said people had a right to be offended, don't impersonate Rush (a la "feminazis") when you describe those who were.

  •  I'm flabbergasted at this sanctimonious ... (4.00)
    ...putdown of a serious concern by serious people. Of course, the first retreat when someone raises an issue of sexist imagery - in advertising or elsewhere - is to suggest that the person raising the concern is a humorless prude. This "reply" is, I am sad to say, an ad hominem attack unworthy of a person I respect most in Blogworld.

    **

    Writing dialog George Lucas so terrible at is. --Yoda

    Visit The Next Hurrah

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:33:19 PM PDT

    •  Thanks MB (4.00)
      I'm flabbergasted as well, but then I'm just a random username here.  I'm really glad someone as intelligent and respected as you spoke up about this.

      DTH

      Please visit my blog at http://polaroppositepolitics.blogspot.com

      by DTH on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:39:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you :-) (4.00)
      Given your stature here, it means a lot to hear you and others, like Carnacki, trying to get the point across into the thick skulls of the "oooh, titties!"  and the "shut up, humorless bitch" boys.
    •  Because (2.00)
      Very often, that person is a sanctimonious prude.

      Of course, the first retreat when someone raises an issue of sexist imagery - in advertising or elsewhere - is to suggest that the person raising the concern is a humorless prude.

      •  Rather than a "1" (4.00)
        I will merely tell you, I find your position offensive.  

        I enjoy sex, I think it's fun and healthy, But guess what? I can simultaneously like sex and oppose sexism.  

        •  so do I (2.50)
          I can simultaneously like sex and oppose sexism.

          The difference is that I don't find depictions of women in a sexual setting to be sexism.  And I find that people who do ("LOOK!  You can see her CLEAVAGE!  And she's wearing DAISY DUKES!") are, often, sanctimonious prudes.

          •  I don't totally disagree with you ... (4.00)
            ...Kevin. I certainly have no problems with titillating images. Even at my age, a cute bod can turn my head. But I think the people who object to certain images because they are humorless, sanctimonious prudes comprise a far smaller percentage of the "progressive" population than you imply and a tiny fraction of the population which thinks concerns about the effects of sexist imagery is legitimately met with guffaws and putdowns.

            I'm no fan of Catherine MacKinnon's perspective on pornography. But sexist imagery is no petty concern. It's all part of a package, the reason we've got a deluge of breast implants, anorexia and top-flight actresses in their 50s who can't get a job because actors in their 60s are screwing 20-year-old starlets on-screen. We may not be able to do much about that cultural package, but can we at least talk about the potentially deleterious impact of supporting it by selling advertising that promotes it?

            **

            Writing dialog George Lucas so terrible at is. --Yoda

            Visit The Next Hurrah

            by Meteor Blades on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:28:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Rather than post (3.92)
              Rather than post my own thoughts, I'm just going to follow you around and say, "What he said" because you get my point across better than I can.

              There is nothing more stimulating than a case where everything goes against you. -- Sherlock Holmes

              by Carnacki on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:40:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  We can indeed (none)
              Talk about whatever we want.  And we can also say that people are being silly.

              I can't help but wonder what all the people who think this ad is sexist or degrading to women think whenever they visit a public beach.  I don't believe that a pretty girl in skimpy clothing is a Bad Thing.  And especially not this ad, which is obviously a satiric takeoff on other advertisements, like that infamous "Tastes great!  Less filling!" ad with the two models rolling around.

              People should visualize James Dobson.  Imagine whether or not he would agree with you on a particular issue.  And if he would, perhaps re-evaluate.  Like I said elsewhere on this thread, I bet Dobson really hates that ad.

        •  Thank you, LL (none)
          That needed to be said. Very well done.

          There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. -Frank Zappa

          by meg on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:00:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed, thank you (n/t) (none)

      Democrats do it better on the Senate floor.

      by sparklegirl on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:54:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you MB (4.00)
      I got to this a little late. I scroll down and see  you have posted how I feel much more eloquently than I ever could.

      To the strong women I know are posting here - please know that there are men here as offended by the tone of some of these comments as you are.

      Kos, you may want to try this again. You may have been steamed by some of the emails you received - but that's not an excuse. This diary may have caused more problems than if you would have said nothing.

  •  asdf (none)
    I'm not even into the ladies, but I saw the ad and thought it was amusing. And it's an ad for a lame "reality" TV show! Ginger versus Mary-Ann? Come on, that a well known pop culture cliche by now. Isn't the PC "movement" dead now? I expect this sort of complaining from right wing groups like the PTC and AFA, where sex is a thing to be feared and repressed, and "tolerance" is a dirty word. Yes, we're supposed to be about diversity and progressive causes, but people are acting like an ad for a dumb "reality" TV show is setting the womens rights movement back to the 1800s. Perspective people.
  •  I like PIE, but...not this diary (4.00)
    The PIE ad is to me a lot less offensive than the wages women are paid in sweatshops by companies like Wal Mart.

    That said, this diary is dismissive of women's studies, and it follows on the recent attacks on NARAL. Add to that the high-fiving in some of the comments here, and Kos is starting to seem like some sort of frat.

    If I had to guess, I'd say the male to female ratio on this website will be even less balanced after this, and we'll lose some of our smarter, more interesting voices. That kind of sucks IMHO.  

    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. Groucho Marx

    by markymarx on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:36:23 PM PDT

    •  On NARAL (none)
      Now I call bullshit. The attack on NARAL was and IS for endorsing Chafee.

      Don't mix THAT up with this.

      I strongly disagree with kos' choice of words here. That one line was awful, just awful.

      But don't drag my legitimate criticisms of NARAL into this.  

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:39:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kos arguably had a point with NARAL. (4.00)
        But this diary makes me question, not his justification, but his motivation for that attack.


        Those who cannot remember the future are condemned to repeat it.

        by Abou Ben Adhem on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:25:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  sorry, don't take it personally (none)
        It's the anti-feminist atmosphere I was getting at in that conversation, rather than your work, which is always thought-provoking (even when it's completely wrong!) :-)
         

        Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. Groucho Marx

        by markymarx on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:10:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's Your Site (3.96)
    So you can obviously do whatever you want.

    But your attitude stinks, IMO.  You've essentially told a significant minority of your membership to fuck off.

    You could've been sensitive and diplomatic, but you deliberately and calculatingly chose to be rude.  I personally don't see any positive in that, and I'm not even sure why you did it.  My guess is that you think this was your "Sister Souljah" moment or something.  But my opinion is that you just jumped the shark.

    I also find the gleeful and braying, "YEAH, you slapped doze bitches down, Kos!!!11!!" attitude to be pretty disgusting.  Certain members of a traditionally oppressed group expressed a concern, and this is the response they get?  Nice solidarity.  Nice tolerance.  Nice "progressive" values.

    Disagree all you want with the concerns expressed by a significant minority of folks on this site, but to be this disrespectful, well, I just don't see any benefit to it.

    DTH

    Please visit my blog at http://polaroppositepolitics.blogspot.com

    by DTH on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:37:22 PM PDT

    •  You would have a point if.. (2.50)
      ..that silly ad and the reactions to it had anything to do at all with feminism.
      •  Images of Women Have Nothing to Do With Feminism? (4.00)
        You might want to rethink that.

        Boggle.

        DTH

        Please visit my blog at http://polaroppositepolitics.blogspot.com

        by DTH on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:41:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Look at it. (4.00)
          An ad, produced in partly by women, featuring paid women.

          Why is it that everyone thinks it is great that women are "empowered" in all possible jobs that they do except when it involves hints of sexuality?

          Women can't get paid (well, I assume in this case) to do anything that is sexual?

          I call that repressive. What does that have to do with feminism?

          And, sheesh, it was a silly ad for a crappy show. Yeah, major feminist cause there.

          •  Maybe if your username (4.00)
            didn't betray your gender, you wouldn't be getting so much shit for this.

            Sigh.

            •  I'd appreciate it (4.00)
              If you'd out yourself  since you're "boycotting". Tell us what you advertise.

              So people like myself can stay miles and miles away from it.

              The sheer stupidity, hypocrasy and incoherent thought posted in this thread is mind boggling.

              "Oh nooo attractive women! Theyre exploited! Down with peni!"

              Stupidity. Simply a new version of puritanism in which self appointed extremist so-called "feminists" wish to.. of all things.. control women, womens bodies and the portrayal of women.
              Hypocrasy.

              The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

              by cdreid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:12:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Are you responding to the wrong comment? (none)
                I have no idea what you're talking about.
                •  I think CD assumed (none)
                  You were giving Frank shit, not bemouning the fact he was getting it, and thus inferred an erroneous position. This isn't the first time CD's gone of half-cocked and made bad assumptions. You should have seen the time he mistook my libertarian friend for a Freeper. He kept taunting her with lines about stolen elections, the 101st Keyboardists, and similar things, even after I told him repeatedly she had nothing to do with the Republican party, and in fact was against the war (which he brought into the conversation for some unknowable reason).

                  Just like in his response to you, all his points would have been valid if he was talking to someone who believed the things he assumed she believed, but because she didn't it was like he was carrying on a conversation with thin-air.

                  Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

                  by Goldfish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:00:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your 'libertarian friend' (none)
                    is an enemy to everything i stand for, everything Christ taught, everything the left stands for, everything the center stands for and even most things moderate republicans stand for. She's far far far right of people like Bush whether you really realise it or not my friend. She doesnt just want to dismantle our social safety net.. she wants to dismantle the country and return us to the days of corrupt county and state white male old boy networks. Read her words. The world she calls for is nothing short of evil. And i refuse to shut up about it just because i respect, like and admire you

                    The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                    by cdreid on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:43:23 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Dial it down (none)
                      It wasn't your objection to CJ's position that was troubling. It was your attempts to pound a square peg into a round whole that was troubling.
                      You were throwing out talking points to her about stolen elections and the war in Iraq. It was
                      embarrassing, because know of it applied to her, and instead of listening to your (valid) point, she IMed me saying "Some crazy guy on Kos just called me a Freeper[a dire insult to her]; he seems deranged."

                      Of course she's to the right of Bush on things like social security, her and ever other Libertarian. But she's to the left of Bush, and even some here on social issues. Again, this
                      what Libertarians are.

                      I'm not saying you shouldn't have challenged CJ. She's actually very open to discussion about these things. And frankly I was hoping someone who can argue the issue better then me would challenge her, because I basically agree with you about what was wrong with CJ's statement.

                      However, what you shouldn't done was go at her with generic anti-Republican talking points that did nothing to address the issue she raised. Your point was good, but it was dragged down under the weight of all the cheap shots you took, none of which actually applied to her (I mean, geez, using Iraq against someone who says Iraq and the WOT are
                      Bush's worst issue wasn't a great move).

                      I'm not pointing all this out because I'm trying to beat up on you. But if I correctly understood your response to Page a little ways back, it seems you have a tendency to make inferences with out adequate justification, and then act on them. It's better to make sure you know what you're dealing with before you go after someone. Making assumptions, and then acting on them will lead to misunderstandings, and destroy any chance you have of getting through to someone.

                      Anyway, don't think I'm giving you a hard time because I have any bad feelings from that thing or anything. I wouldn't take time to write a reply this long to someone who's opinions I didn't value. Peace.

                      Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

                      by Goldfish on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 02:23:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I dont think you're (none)
                        giving me a hard time at all. Hopefully i didnt post anything offensive towards you that makes you think i believe you shouldnt have spoken your piece.

                        Goldfish heres .. er what really bothers me:
                        You were throwing out talking points to her about stolen elections and the war in Iraq. It was
                        embarrassing, because know of it applied to her, and instead of listening to your (valid) point, she IMed me saying "Some crazy guy on Kos just called me a Freeper[a dire insult to her]; he seems deranged."

                        The poster didnt take me on head on or justify their point. They called you, a genuine democrat and a friend, to "make the bad people go away so i can spew my talking points"

                        The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                        by cdreid on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:06:06 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  EEP (none)
                  Weird. The comment was in response to a threat to boycott Kos, Democrats, god america and apple pie because we didnt "tow the line". Dont know how it ended up here.

                  OOPS sorry

                  The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                  by cdreid on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:46:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  A four (none)
                For a very good point, even if it was directed to the wrong person.

                Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

                by Goldfish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:01:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  produced by women...etc (4.00)
            who says there aren't some dumbass women in the world?
          •  This really is (none)
            The feminist equivelent of Dobson's crusade against Sponge Bob Square Pants. I dispair.

            Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

            by Goldfish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:46:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Frankly frank (3.00)
        Your have no idea what you are talking about on this subject.
      •  Men are always such experts... (4.00)
        ... on feminism.

        "Well, I don't think it's sexist so it must be just fine!!"

        - some guy

        bush is a weed in the garden of democracy.

        by miss love on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:36:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This blog is a rebellion against tactful diplomacy (none)
      and sensitivity. The pathetic Democrats, sensitively parsing every sentence are anathema around here because they make sure to say the right things, send kisses to all the standard middle class groups, and sign on the the MBNA credit card bill and wimp out as Iraq slides into patriarchal theocracy enforced by guns and beatings.
    •  Funny (none)
      I read this post and also thought to myself kos has just jumped the shark. Thinking about leaving the country because of the state of affairs politically is one thing but when the people you expect to be on your side piss on you - it's really time to go.
  •  Allow me to pile on (4.00)
    and say that I was bugged by Kos' response. Honestly, is this the kind of immature name-calling that is passing for discourse here? The "sanctimonious women's studies set"?

    Please. Let's reserve the name-calling for those who want to send our kids to die in wars for foreign oil while increasing the disparaty between rich and poor at home. NOT for those who are concerned that one whole half of humanity is regularly degraded for the sake of another half.

    You could take some of your own advice, man. I wouldn't have known that you had such a negative attitude about feminism had you just ignored the complaints rather than being snooty.

    Am I going to stop reading here? Not yet. But I'm not terribly happy about this.

  •  Let me get this straight (3.83)
    Some people thinke women in the ad are being exploited as sex objects and are speaking out about it, causing kos alot of grief apparently. So let me ask who exactly are the offended people mad at? The people ultimately responsible for the women being exploited are the women themselves, unless someone can convince us that they were drugged or otherwise hoodwinked into starring in the ad without their consent. Why isn't the anger directed at the women for behaving in a manner not consistent with the feminist message? Why are the feminists empowering these women to make better choices in their lives, instead of attacking the myriad of others who indirectly made the ad viewable by anybody?

    These women had a choice to participate or not, so why isn't the responsibility for all this placed squarely on their shoulders? Or could it be that even feminists respect freedom, liberation and free will enough to let these women make their own choices, but just can't handle it if the choices they make are not in line with their particular agenda?

    •  Because what feminists are criticizing (4.00)
      is a cultural mindset, which subtly coerces women into degrading their bodies for the titillation of men.

      Anyone who's ever taken sociology (in which, I admit, I am more well versed than women's studies) knows that although individuals have free choice, societal trends play a large role in individual behavior.

      So in this case, the opponents of the ad are criticizing the culture that allows such videos to be so popular, the blame for which cannot be placed solely on the shoulders of the particular women who gave into a cultural norm.

      Democrats do it better on the Senate floor.

      by sparklegirl on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:00:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Degrading their bodies? (none)
        Is that what sex is about? Degradation?

        D'oh! All this time I thought it was fun, after getting beyond the all the cultural guilt trip  bullshit that says we're supposed to feel dirty everytime we engage in a little skin friction.

        Hm. How do you like that, the feminists just got lumped into the same category as the holier than thou Christian extremists. Maybe that's where kos got his "sanctimonious" ideas.

        •  No, sex isn't about degradation (4.00)
          I have no problem with sex. But I can see why some people have a problem with women putting their bodies on display in a sleazy manner for the enjoyment of men. Personally, I don't think the ad itself was that big of a deal--it's not like there isn't much worse out there. But there's a difference between healthy sexuality and cheapening sex by constantly putting women on display and implying that that's all they're good for, which is an attitude that seems to have some influence in the ad in question.

          Democrats do it better on the Senate floor.

          by sparklegirl on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:19:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So tell me, when is it ok in your opinion (none)
            to put a woman in all her sexual glory on display? Ever? or Never? Which society do you want to live in, the one that says Never, or the one that embraces it and enjoys it when the opportunity presents itself?
            •  When she does it for herself (none)

              Democrats do it better on the Senate floor.

              by sparklegirl on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:42:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So if they weren't paid for the ad (none)
                it would be considered just fine and dandy, because they did it for the pleasure of doing it?

                Is that what you're asking for?

                •  Nope (none)
                  Just that they don't feel the need to make objects out of themselves.

                  As I've said before, I don't think this particular ad was all that bad (I didn't watch it, because I didn't want to contribute to the extra publicity the controversy has given it, but I think I've gotten a pretty good idea of its contents from this discussion). But I do think it is indicative of larger social trends that still exist, even though we've come a long way toward moving beyond them.

                  Democrats do it better on the Senate floor.

                  by sparklegirl on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:54:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  When she does it for herself (none)
                Please tell me what would qualify as "doing it for herself".

                "Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture." - Allen Ginsberg

                by chi mai on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:52:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  should we never (none)
                be naked or tintillating for our partners?
                •  Not what I meant (none)
                  Sorry it was unclear, but I think I explained myself more clearly in my other responses ion this thread.

                  Democrats do it better on the Senate floor.

                  by sparklegirl on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:02:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  You can fight with pies, for all I care (none)
                  but what does what you do in the bedroom have to do with what is allegedly being done here -- building the Democratic Party?  With stupid ads that belie what at least used to be the core principles of the Democratic Party?  Well, let's just run the Confederate flag up the flagpole and see how that flies. . . .  Or even if you want to wrap yourself in a flag for your partner, so what, as it pertains to this site?

                  "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                  by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:07:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Exactly (4.00)
                    It isn't censorship to choose ads that reflect the values of the community in which they are posted.

                    And I don't think the ad in question reflects the kind of progressive values we want to project, nor does Kos' flippant dismissal of those who objected (which he did half-heartedly retract, at least).

                    If the ad had played on a stereotype about blacks or Jews, no one would have been blowing off the criticism of it. But somehow it's ok to objectify women as long as its in the spirit of good fun.

                    I'm all for fun, and I'm certainly all for sexual humor (as anyone who knows me can attest), but the objections to this ad are understandable and not a symptom of humorlessness or sanctimoniousness, but rather of a desire for respect for all people, male or female.

                    Democrats do it better on the Senate floor.

                    by sparklegirl on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:29:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  uh (none)
                    are democrats/liberals not sexual?  I really am missing the issue here.  Other than the Women's Studies thing, which Kos apologized for, there's really nothing that is offensive in this ad, perse.  Unless you find eroticism and food and bosoms offensive.  If you do you would never have much fun with me if we were intimate!  

                    I find it ironic that people who get offended with this ad, also have defended gay rights, lesbian rights, etc.  

                    I used to watch Xena.  Loved it.  (yes, i'm a woman).  The sexual zest between her and Gabriel was extremely obvious.  This however, among my feminist friends (and i am also a feminist) didn't bother them at all, they loved it.  

                    And let's face it, GI has always had that sexual tension between those two.  And were I stuck on a desert island with that crew?  I'd probably do that too after a few weeks.
                    Is the difference because one is sorta drama/comedy and the other just comedy?  Is it only acceptable sexuality if the characters also have a story behind them?  

                    I just don't see why people should get upset about a semi-erotic fully clothed pie fight.  Sexuality is a healthy and a good thing.  What is perverse is violence.  What is porn is the news.  What is silly is having a virtual pie fight over two girls having a PIE FIGHT!

                    Get over yourselves people, it's not a real issue.  If two grown women want to have a pie fight and want to eroticize it on a sitcom, then more power to them.  Doesn't bother me any.

                    Let's focus on what's important.  And you all know what that is.

      •  Let me tell you something (none)
        I don't want a culture that sends anything regarding sexuality back into an underground closet and we become an uptight society that forbids itself from enjoying all that life has to offer. If you want to attack the culture we have, then prepare for battle. If you want to stop the objectification of women, then empower the goddamn women to make choices in their lives that don't allow them to be objectified. This belongs 100% on those women's plate. This is not 1950, women today are stronger and more empowered than they've ever been to make their own choices and establish their own career paths. You want to stop them from choosing anything sexual in nature, then focus your efforts on them and get off this "society" is to blame bullshit.
      •  "the culture" (4.00)
        the culture that allows such videos to be so popular

        "the culture" is the fact that hetero men find woman attractive.  That isn't "the culture", that is life.

        degrading their bodies

        By being paid to appear in an advertisement?  Should they instead have chosen to be unemployed?  Would that be less degrading?

        The very notion that sexual imagery is degrading is the root of this problem here.  There is a certain gray zone where extremist feminism (and note the qualifying adjective "extemist", and understand I am not talking about all feminism, but only a very small part) converges with the puritanism of the far right.  Certain posters at DKos really, really hate that ad.  I bet James Dobson hates it too.

        •  I don't hate it (4.00)
          but I think it is a minor symptom of some troubling cultural attitudes that still exist.

          I probably wouldn't have even thought to complain about the ad itself, but Kos' demeaning of feminists was way out there, and it just goes to show that there's still sexism even the progressive left.

          Democrats do it better on the Senate floor.

          by sparklegirl on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:33:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Wasn't in on the fight (4.00)
    Haven't been around for much of anything this weekend, but did catch a whiff of it.

    I have to say Markos, that your attitude, and the swipe at the "women's studies" set, or whatever the hell you said, pisses me off.

    It's your site, I haven't even seen the damned ad since I subscribed, but the cavalier and demeaning way in which you refer to the concerns of a whole bunch of women (and a number of men) on this site is pretty fucking offensive.

    I was with you totally on NARAL, because they were ultimately shooting themselves in the foot on that one. And, even though I'd rather you stuck to political ads on the site, I don't care that you run this one. I do care that you take a shit on a whole bunch of people who are genuinely and rightfully offended because you see it as so much PC bullshit. That I have a problem with.

    I got nuthin'. But check out unbossed.

    by Joan McCarter on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:43:07 PM PDT

    •  The words were bad (4.00)
      The attitude as well.

      A serious mistake.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:45:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We call it sanctimony (none)
      when Dobson does it, or Lieberman, or the Family Values Coalition.

      It's sanctimony here. I call 'em as I see 'em. Always have, always will.

      •  Poor choice of words (4.00)
        You could have just as easily said "And I certainly won't let a small sanctimonious set play that role on this site."

        But instead you wrote "And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site."

        And that is just...messed up in so many ways. Instead of making a fairly cogent critique of a small group you instead make a very broad attack on a lot of good and intelligent people.

        But hey, at least we won't be talking about the pie ad any more...

        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

        by eugene on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:57:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And I call us, and you, better than that (4.00)
        Equating the people here that had problems with that ad with Dobson, or Lieberman, or the FVC is patently unfair and a gross mischaracterization.

        Again, it's not about the ad, it's about your tone in dismissing so many community members.

        I got nuthin'. But check out unbossed.

        by Joan McCarter on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:59:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (4.00)
          I haven't been to the site in a while, and I wouldn't have even noticed the ad, but what I noticed was Kos' attack on feminism, which was truly disappointing. The ad itself probably would have been best left ignored, but that's no reason to bash a major segment of the progressive community.

          Sometimes I think the community on this site is much better than the person who actually runs it....

          Democrats do it better on the Senate floor.

          by sparklegirl on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:03:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hold up (4.00)
            Don't say that. We all use phrases that we might later regret.

            Markos made a serious mistake here. But as a PERSON, you have no right to make that comment. The community is NOT better than Markos.

            You wouldn't say that if you really knew him.

            I know you are angry, and rightly so, but you can not, or at least should not, judge him solely on this. That is simply not fair.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:06:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I said sometimes. (4.00)
              I haven't always been impressed with Kos' commentary, and this latest comment is particularly nasty and non-progressive. There are a lot of insightful, hard-working posters on this site, and frankly, I do think many of them are more thoughtful than Kos himself.  But I do recognize that he is the one that makes all the discussion on this site possible, and I have to give him credit for that.

              Democrats do it better on the Senate floor.

              by sparklegirl on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:12:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  what Armando said (4.00)
            I never question Markos's commitment to progressive causes. Sometimes I question his choice of words, particularly tonight, but not his values and not his goals.

            I got nuthin'. But check out unbossed.

            by Joan McCarter on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:09:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I had a feeling I shouldn't have said that (4.00)
              I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I guess I should clarify that what I really feel is that this community is bigger than Kos, as Carnack said here, because the site is really the people who make it up.

              In this instance, Kos showed a surprisingly high level of assholeness, and I like to think this site usually operates on a higher level, at least among the most frequent and most respected posters.

              Democrats do it better on the Senate floor.

              by sparklegirl on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:36:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Isee it differently (4.00)
        Sanctimonious? Perhaps.But you belittled an important issue.

        Mind you I agree, as much as I can, haven't seen the ad, only the descriptions, that you should be able to run the ad without this protest.

        I was just making the point that I didn't get this kind of support on the Summers issue. In fact, I got attacked about this much. So your point on PRIORITIES is very welll taken.

        But the choice of words was simply a mistake. A serious mistake.

        In my opinion of course. Is that being PC? Perhaps, but it is how I feel. The women's studies line - that was wrong.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:04:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But you came out swinging (4.00)
        not for the sanctimony but for the women.  And you came out swinging for women with an amount of bile equivalent to that which you often shower upon the worst of our foes.

        Even today, there are multiple diaries about circular firing squads among Dems (triggered by Biden having a pop at Dean this morning), and here you are practically issuing the orders!

        I'm conflicted now.  In the Langevin/NARAL diary, I spoke of principle and how it just ain't much of a principle if it's something you're prepared to bargain with.  In principle, I should retire from this community since its spiritual leader appears to be actively fostering an atmosphere that is unwelcoming to outspoken intellectual women.  In practice, that would be very hard for me to do, because my pragmatic side tells me that the good shit doesn't get accomplished when outspoken intellectual women withdraw from the conversation.

        What to do, what to do.

        •  What to do? You ... (4.00)
          ...answered your own question. ...the good shit doesn't get accomplished when outspoken intellectual women withdraw from the conversation.

          Over the past few months, the very serious arguments we're having in various threads  - about reproductive rights, gender hard-wiring, et cetera - aren't going to stop unless those of us who draw the line at some Democrats' namby-pambyism on these issues abandon the arena.  

          I don't believe in circular firing squads. But I do believe in fighting for what's right. And in demanding to know just how much from those who say we should ease up on this single issue or that one for the good of the Democratic Party are willing to surrender. I'm one of those who believes that Daily Kos should not be off-limits to battles in the culture wars.

          Some of the people whose views I am closest to on most other issues disagree with me strongly about the Pie Fight ad, NARAL and many other matters having to do with "women's concerns." Struggling it out can be a pain, especially when the acrimony gauge redlines and the "1"s and "0"s overflow. But abandoning the debate gets us nowhere.  

          Stick around, sister.

          **

          Writing dialog George Lucas so terrible at is. --Yoda

          Visit The Next Hurrah

          by Meteor Blades on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:45:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This is not about moral values... (4.00)
        or censorship, this is about treating all members of society with respect, respecting equal rights, civil rights, minority rights, and standing against stereotypes and discrimination.  Strange that you don't see the difference.
      •  Thanks for the update, Markos (4.00)
        and for understanding why so many here reacted the way we have.

        I still disagree on the sanctimony part, but that's where thinking people can disagree.

        I got nuthin'. But check out unbossed.

        by Joan McCarter on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:34:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think (none)
      that the escalating of emomtions, or the erecting of "sides", are ways that we, as thoughtful adults and political allies should handle this disagreement.
      •  why am I reminded of: (none)
        People, people!! Can't you SEE that this is what they want?  They want us to turn on EACH OTHER, so then they can get us when we're weak!

        Isn't that from Star Trek or some other crazy sitcom??

    •  You and eugene nailed it (4.00)
      Jumping in late, I want to break it down a little further:

      Sanctimonious. A holier-than-thou attitude
      Women's Studies. As others have pointed out, within this phrase is a euphemism for feminazi.
      Set. Ambiguous, anonymous, broad swipe

      And this is maybe the kicker:
      won't let. SYFPH

      So just who got smacked down here? We don't know. Was this only in reaction to the "pie diary," or the NARAL diaries, or any of the other "women's issues" diaries? Which of us loud-mouthed, opinionated, shrill feminists have offended? We don't know. But there's a "set" of us who are not welcome and we have been put in our place. Back of the bus, anyone? Here, come sit by me.

      I do know that I have tried to ignore some of Kos' other comments which have bordered on sexist. This one not only can't be ignored, it reinforces in concrete the past suspicions. Here's the question: Why even respond? There are dozens of diaries that anyone of us might consider nonimportant on any given day? What pushed your buttons on this one, kos?

      And now, whoopee, I know that there are others who have not the faintest of clues as to why this is offensive. And I've also been reminded of those who understand it completely.

      Does this

      It's a fair critique, and duly noted.

      convince me that Kos gets it now? Not by a long shot.

      mcjoan, I know this is harsher than what you've intended and I apologize if this hijacks your comment. But, right now, I've got to hold in my mind that you're one of the people who can keep me coming back here.

      "I still think politics is about who's getting screwed and who's doing the screwing." -Molly Ivins

      by hono lulu on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:45:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  can I please get a list (4.00)
    of the usernames who kos considers to be the "women's studies set"?  Kos - exactly who do you mean?  Who, specifically, are you referring to?

    "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." - MLK

    by JLFinch on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:43:35 PM PDT

    •  Well (4.00)
      Kos appears to have gone AWOL.  Are you not going to respond to any of what has been said above?

      "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." - MLK

      by JLFinch on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:50:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  still (4.00)
        no answer.  Since kos "calls them as he sees them" I would like him to name names - who are the extremists who offend you so deeply?  Which users on this site?

        "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." - MLK

        by JLFinch on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:29:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The man strikes a blow (3.85)
    right to the gut.

    (sniff,sniff) I know he didn't mean to hurt me! He loves me!

    Silly me. It is my fault.

    I was trying to be a good progressive, a good liberal, a good Democrat! I thought I was supposed to speak up when something was offensive and explain why!

    I thought building when building a tent it would be helpful to explain how the tool being used could be counterproductive.

    I will just try harder. He is working on bigger things. I will keep my mouth shut.

    Coffee anyone?

  •  I dunno (4.00)
    I am a woman  who thinks that women are very attractive and sexy and all. And its not necessarily male oppression that makes everyone celebrate their sexuality.
    My dead mother (bless her heart) said 'if you got it flaunt it, it will go away soon enough'.
  •  The Ad VS Women's Studies Set? (none)
    I've read through this thread & I still can't see a coherent argument for why this ad was offensive. People who were supposedly offended seem to be more upset with the "Women Studies" comment.

    WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THE AD?

  •  sounds like misogyny to me. (3.45)
    this post seems composed by a misogynist. lets break it down shall we? sexy lesbianistic manner? ample fake bosoms? BOSOMS? you might find humorless, knee-jerk reactions to be offensive. some of us find misogn, and objectification, to be so. hide behind your labels for us, if you will. we see you clearly. hate the "women's studies set", hate the women, eh?
    •  may I recommend to you, from the Community Norms (4.00)
      page, the following selection:

      #  A 4 means the comment is superb. Generally, 4's get handed out for comments that are particularly insightful, informative, moving, or just plain funny.
      # A 3 is for above-average comments. Not great, not terrible.
      # A 2 is for a fairly marginal comment. These comments don't add much to the conversation, and the 2 serves as a kind of "shot across the bow" to warn that you may want to reconsider adding such comments in the future.
      # A 1 is a "troll-rated" comment. These are comments that are basically devoid of content, add nothing to the conversation, and/or are offensive.
      # A 0 is a "super-troll" comment. Generally speaking, 0s are reserved for auto-generated comments, or for comments that serve no other purpose than to sow hurt, confusion and dissent among the posters. Only Trusted Users may give 0s.

      You might find this more useful and, shall we say, nuanced, than handing out a 1 to everyone you disagree with, and a 4 to everyone who shares your viewpoint.

      •  well said! (none)
        There is another poster from the opposite viewpoint of this poster that is doing the same.  I think it was earlier in the comments though.  I don't post comments often and when I do they generally receive good ratings.  I think it is best to respond to a poster you disagree with, rather than give them a bad rating.  But, there are some who use and abuse the ratings system here.  It is annoying and out of line.  Thanks for posting this reminder about using the ratings system.

        "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program." - G.W. Bush; 11/2/00

        by pilotweed on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:40:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  two days on (none)
        Its been two days since you replied to my post. I have calmed down a little bit in the meantime. I will admit to assigning 4's and 1's in the heat of my anger late the other evening. I suppose I"m human and I did take Kos's disrespect personally and with all the taunting going on I suppose I lost it for a bit. I'm past that now and have been reflecting on your post and I'm trying to be a little more contructive and a better community member. What Im curious about now though, is did you lecture the "tits", "bazooms", "ta-ta's" posters about nuance equally as you did me? I'm curious because I don't care to be talked down to. Were you doing so? Did you single only me out? Or were you acting to protect all members of the community? A reply would be welcome.
        •  No, I didn't "lecture" any of them (none)
          and I'm sorry you read this as a lecture. I wouldn't read too much into it, I posted it as a reply to your comment because you were the first person I noticed handing out large numbers of ones, but I assumed other eyes would see it as well.

          I didn't "lecture" anyone else because I had nothing specific to offer any of the people you mentioned. In my opinion it's one thing to say "some of us need to remember the real purpose of the rating system" but far less likely that anyone will heed something like "some of us need to grow up."

          •  thanks (none)
            I've just read your reply and I thank you for it.  I kept your post in mind this past week and I tried to be more aware of using the ratings properly, albeit with limited success. It has been a difficult week.  I am now sure that you posted it to me out of a desire to assist and educate with the best of intentions. Thank you for that.
    •  Stop the abusive ratings. (none)
      As the commenter below points out, that is a violation of the community norms.
  •  Look, I think there's a couple things (4.00)
    ...going on here.

    First of all, there's the content of Kos's post. He doesn't find anything at all wrong with the ad and he doesn't like censorship. Fine.

    The second thing is not the content, but the tone. Which is snarky to the max.

    Here's the way I see it. I had a choice to make recently on my Yahoo group. Choice One was to do exactly what Kos did. Choice Two is to leave it alone. I decided on choice two.

    There's a difference between me and Kos, though. First of all my Yahoo group has 1000 members, not 50K or whatever Kos has. Second of all, the blow-up would've been over off-topic posts, and I decided not to alienate half my readers over off-topic posts. I decided to ignore the place pretty much completely until I post more of my writings (which is what the group is for). But I easily could've chosen the 'say what I feel and who gives a shit who I offend' route, and I understand why Kos did it.

    Because it comes down to this: That's HIS name on the banner. Not yours. Not mine. Not anybody else's. He's the one that pays the costs for the bandwith and has to figure out how to pay for it. And allowing all of us to, basically, post any shit we want in a blog with his name on it that he pays for--is pretty damn generous any way you slice it.

    Think of it this way: say I invite you into my home. Let you eat my food, watch my DVDs, borrow my computer to post on Kos, all of it, playing Generous Host to the hilt?  Would you bitch about the naked Nicole Bobek poster on the wall (if I had one, and I would if they existed <G>)? Would you make a big stink about it?

    You might, if naked figure skaters offended you. And I'd never invite you in my home to eat my food ever again, I promise you that.

    The analogy doesn't completely hold, because this is more of a 'public' place than my home. But it's not as public as some people think it is. It's still Kos's name and Kos's bills to pay. People did have their say. He didn't delete the threads. And I have considered deleting my whole damn Yahoo group because of the crap. It's my group. I can do whatever I want. Imagine if Kos shut this place down in disgust? I shudder...

    "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

    by ChurchofBruce on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:49:22 PM PDT

    •  But there would be no dailykos (4.00)
      without everyone who posts here.  Kos makes money on advertising because of all the people who come to the site.  People come to the site to read everyone's diaries and posts.
      •  To a point (none)
        But, if you think about it, we have it easy.

        We don't have to pay for anything. We don't have to worry about site design. We don't have to worry about maintenance. We don't have to do anything when the site goes down besides sit and wait.

        All we do is post.

        I do see your point.

        But I also see the other side, being a writer with a presence on the internet. Do I appreciate fans? Of course I do. But I'd still write if there were no fans. And fans who think they have some kind of ownership are damn annoying sometimes.

        There's a difference between being welcome guests or even participants, and having ownership. We don't own any of this. Kos does.

        "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

        by ChurchofBruce on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:45:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There would be nothing to own (none)
          if people didn't post here.  This is not a blog made up of Markos's writings.  This is a blog made up of other people's writings.  Markos barely posts here, so clearly people don't come here to read his opinions, because his opinions constitute a very small minority of what gets written here.
          •  And it is those who post and read here (none)
            who are "selling" this site.  Advertisers buy not based on Kos' pretty page design or his opinions, thank heavens for that, but for the number of users -- as it would seem someone would know who has a site!

            "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

            by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:09:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Absolutely right (4.00)
              DailyKos is nothing but an empty shell without the thousands of people who post their thoughts on it (for free) which Kos then sells.

              It's normally a fair exchange--Kos earns his living (partly) by providing a forum for us to be read, and in return, we provide the content that keeps the whole enterprise moving.

              But I find no fairness in deliberately, and consistently, insulting women on this site.

              I do disagree on the "prettiness" of the site--it's rather clunky and the entire site design needs to be overhauled to make it easier to post comments, etc.  

              There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

              by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:53:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And that.. (none)
              ..is the 'to a point' I agree with.

              But Kos still owns it. I don't know the capabilities of Scoop, so I'm making assumptions here--though I assume Scoop has more functionality than Yahoo Groups <G>. But on my Yahoo group, I can ban people. I can delete posts. I can delete entire threads. Not a poster, or a word, appears without my permission, whether it's implicit or explicit. And I have no moderators so I'm the only one that can do this.

              Now, doing such things may very well be counterproductive. For Kos they most likely would be. Which is why I don't do them and I'm sure why Kos doesn't.

              However, don't dismiss the 'ownership' factor. And don't dismiss the impulse. God, there are days I am tempted. Betcha Kos is, too.

              This would be a very boring sandbox to play in without all you cool Kossians, yes. However, Kos does still have the key to the gate. And if his ownership of the sandbox manifests itself only in the occasional "Hey, I own this fucking sandbox!" post--which is what this post is--then I can live with that.

              "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

              by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:02:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed, and I'm the first (none)
                to remind users of not just the ownership factor but his "liability factor" when they contravene the rules of copyright. . . .

                It is his sandbox, but that it's a complex system of a sandbox -- as is any means of mass communication -- was my point.  Whether news editors or station managers or site owners, once advertising enters in, it becomes even more complex . . . but we all need to better understand how all advertising-based media rely on us as users to truly foment "citizen journalism" -- on the 'Net as in the MSM, right?

                "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:04:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed... (none)
      But it really was throwing gasoline on the fire to refer to the complainant parties as "the sanctimonious women's studies set."

      If such a set exists, nothing would piss them off more than being referred to as such. As we are seeing above.

      •  If I had decided to go off on my group... (none)
        ...I would've had two 'groups' to address.

        One would be 'fucking ignorant Liberatarian-types who voted for Bush'.

        Two would be 'writers who aren't nearly as good as they think they are, and only invate my group because they don't have the fandom or the balls to start their own.'

        If I had said that, I would've absolutlely deliberately insulted a number of people. And the couple or so that fit into both those catagories would've known I was calling them out.

        I didn't do it. But the truth? If I had 50,000 readers instead of 1,000? I would have.

        But besides pissing off people I really don't care about, there would've been collateral damage. And I don't want 1000 to become 500. If I had 50,000, I wouldn't care if it became 40,000. Or even 25,000.

        In other words--I'll bet Kos knew exactly who he was going to piss off. And he doesn't care. With 50,000, and more every day, he don't care if a few thousand skedaddle.

        Me, I think I'm going to put a composite of some of my worst antagonists as a character into a story. Much more underhanded way of doing it. Ah, the joys of writing fiction :-)

         

        "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

        by ChurchofBruce on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:54:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Is all this garment rending really necessary? (4.00)
    It's so wildly out of proportion to the import of this dumb ad.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:52:21 PM PDT

  •  Nice (4.00)
    Setting the women's movement back with snide, offhanded remarks.  How disappointing.  It's not so much the ad itself I object to, but your dismissal of the complaints about it.  It has the same foul odor as the treatment given to women reporting sexual harassment in the workplace.  Boys will be boys after all.

    "A simple lie will be believed by more people than a complex truth." - TrueBlueMajority

    by starkness on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:52:34 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, Kos (4.00)
    I'll say honestly that I didn't see the ad as offensive as some here did.  But your post is way, way more dismissive than it needs to be.  You can still disagree with someone while at the same time trying to appreciate their perspective.  Isn't that what liberals do?

    I particularly didn't like this line:

    And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site.

    "Alex, I'll take 'Sweeping Generalizations' for $1000, please."

    If I want to hear something like that, I'll tune into fucking Rush Limbaugh.

    I won't leave the site, not that anyone would care, because I generally like it and I think great work is being done here.  But that doesn't mean we can just sweep aside people's concerns.

    As as for the sex potshots, I happen to know more than a few of the "women's studies set".  When it comes to sophisticated attitudes toward sex, I'll bet dead presidents they've got most of us beat here.  Hands down.

    And we'll all float on okay - Modest Mouse

    by Linnaeus on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:52:44 PM PDT

    •  You nailed it, Linnaeus (4.00)
      Kos' ridiculous attack ignores the fact that the most progressive, open, and affirming attitudes about sex come from the women's studies set. You and I are thinking of the same people (shared friends of ours) who are more sex positive than any of us put together.

      Funny that you and I both zeroed in on the same offending line. Of course, your response was much more tightly and effectively argued, whereas I did my usual rant and ramble. Good work.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:02:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know Eugene (none)
        Part of my required course readings in my Women's Studies program were Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon.  While I understand why it was important I read their work, I can't say they had open and affirming attitudes about sex.  Then again I was in this program 15 years ago.

        You have been your usual cogent self in this thread...

        •  Things have changed (4.00)
          It seems the poster Cream City knows much more about this than I, and that poster has said much the same. I think that a diary on the issue is very much called for. Feminism is extremely important to us, and I wish more of us would identify with progressive feminism - even men like me. But I think the new directions in women's studies need to be explained to a lay audience, to show folks that feminism doesn't have to mean sanctimony.

          I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

          by eugene on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:29:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  the sanctimonious women's studies set (3.87)
    you had me until that point, kos.  that comment was over the top (and like throwing more red meat to the easily offended).

    as much as I admire you, this is a good reminder that you are not perfect, especially when it comes to women's issues.  but we all have to pick our battles and if you think this one is unimportant that's your prerogative.

    It does feel inappropriate to me for a progressive site to make money off lowest common denominator aspects of the culture.  lowest common denominator America is the reason we have that man in the White House now.

    I never noticed the ad until the diaries started.  I never would have clicked on it if not for trying to find out what was supposed to be so offensive about it.  I don't see what's the big deal about surgically enhanced breasts and women covered in goo.

    Has it occured to anyone but me that men, even on dKos, can value women's serious contributions AND look at the pie fight video?  With all due respect to the lesbian roommate mentioned upthread, there may be women who like looking at the pie fight video too.

    my suggestion to everyone:  next time there is an offensive ad on the site, don't click it and the advertisers will decide to place the ad elsewhere.

    or click it and help kos get the money to support this forum.

    i don't care which.

    I hope this is over now.  we have bigger fish to fry.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:54:01 PM PDT

  •  Noted (none)
    It looks to me as if many of the folks commenting here didn't actually check out the diaries referred to. At least I didn't see your comments there. Y'all are just piling on & don't know jack.
  •  uhm hhem.... (none)
    I wondered if there was just something I wasn't getting...I tried to understand how two rousing women in a TV show ad could be such a terribly bad thing.  I personally would have enjoyed it more had it been two sexy men, but I guess that wouldn't fly in Topeka....
    •  HaHa! (none)
      I suggested elsewhere in this thread that while as a straight male I enjoyed the ad, in all fairness for straight women and gay male kossacks, he really should also post an ad involving hot sweaty construction workers taking off their shirts and drinking Cokes or something.

      Politics is so much better when there's sex. - Louis XIV

      by goblue72 on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:02:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What I would really like to know (3.40)
    is...

    Would there be so much outrage if this site was run by a woman?

    Didn't think so.

    •  Must be similar to why we didn't criticize (none)
      any of W's recent female judicial appointments as anti-woman </snark>

      America began begins with freedom from King George's empire.

      by bribri on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:02:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  More "outrage" (2.66)
      I expect women to have more sense.
      •  That's very, very sexist (3.55)
        "I expect women to have more sense."

        That's sexism if I ever heard it.

      •  Ding ding! (none)
        I'll take misandry for 2000, Alex.

        They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

        by TheCrimsonKid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:18:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Banana Cream Pie (none)
        Banana cream pie recipe, made with milk, eggs, cinnamon, butter, and sliced bananas.

        INGREDIENTS:

            * 1 cup whole milk
            * 4 egg yolks
            * 1 cup granulated sugar
            * 5 tablespoons all-purpose flour
            * 3 tablespoons butter, cut in small pieces
            * 1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon
            * 1 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
            * 2 cups heavy cream divided
            * 2 bananas, thinly sliced and tossed with 1 1/2 tablespoons lemon juice (about 1/2 lemon)
            * 1 baked 9-inch pie shell

        PREPARATION:
        In a heavy saucepan, bring milk to the boiling point.
        Place egg yolks in mixing bowl and beat on medium speed of electric mixer, gradually adding sugar. Beat for 2 minutes, until mixture is thick and lemon-colored. Beat in flour. With mixer on low speed, gradually add the hot milk.

        Transfer mixture to heavy saucepan and heat over medium heat, stirring constantly. Let mixture come to a boil and boil for about 1 minute, stirring constantly. Remove from heat and continue to beat until mixture is smooth. Beat in butter a little at a time; then blend in cinnamon. Stir in vanilla extract; let mixture cool.

        Beat 1 cup of the cream until firm but not stiff. Mix about 1/2 cup of the whipped cream into the egg mixture to lighten it. Fold remaining whipped cream into egg mixture then fold in sliced bananas.

        Transfer filling to the pastry shell. Whip remaining cream and spoon or pipe onto the pie. Refrigerate until serving time.

        Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

        by Goldfish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:07:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If it was a woman (3.90)
      who essentially told a large group of her community to fuck off because their concerns didn't matter to her, yeah, I think there'd be some outrage.

      Again, I'm not concerned about the ad as much as I am about the attitude toward the community Markos's tone implies.

      I got nuthin'. But check out unbossed.

      by Joan McCarter on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:04:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe one needs to take their own advice (4.00)
        Sometimes, the best way to kill something you disagree with is to ignore it.

        The ad was not offensive to me either, but I felt like I have just been taken to the woodshed just because I am female.

        Fix the Problems, Don't create new ones

        by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:21:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Politely -- (4.00)
      Well yes, if the same language were used.

      I hadn't posted on the original discussion of the pie ad.  And my initial post here was made w/o having read the diary -- just trying to have some fun.

      Then I read the diary, and the thread and evaluated both.

      Now it seems that the diary is more offensive than the ad.

      They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

      by Limelite on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:13:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ironically (4.00)
        Now it seems that the diary is more offensive than the ad.

        The threads in all of the diaries on this subject has been more offensive than the ad.

        "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

        by colleen on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:03:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Would a woman (4.00)
      have taken Kos'  tone, Page?
      That seems to be the problem right now.
  •  Sanctimonious. Boy am I going to be using that (none)
    word a lot more! You talk about people getting pissed off over nothing. Obviously Kos was a little tired of getting busted in the chops over some stupid nothing by people looking to get pissed off over something, and smacked them down so it would sting the way this has been stinging him. Give it a rest, 95% of all humor is a little mean-spirited, that's what makes the bannana peel funny.
  •  to Kos (4.00)
    What ad? Wasn't even aware of it until you brought it up. Ignore the braying asses; more important shit going. Go, Kos.
  •  Concurring Opinion (4.00)
    I'm a woman.  I wasn't offended by the ad - couldn't care less about it.  I was offended by Kos's rude dismissal of women and their concerns.
  •  Outrage fatigue & Gender (4.00)
    If Kossacks have long ago stopped being surprised by the power grabs by the Right,
    Many more have even longer ago stopped being surprised by objectifying depictions of women in advertisements.

    Yes it's easy to see the ad is offensive without actually being offended.

    So Kos runs the ad - that's where the money on the internets is... it's his (unfortunate) choice (or maybe not - I don't know how blogads work...).

    But "sanctimonious women's studies set"!?!
    Yes, Kos, you're anger makes you powerful.
    Go ahead, say it - "feminazi"

    If Reform Democrats care a whit about equality and addressing oppression, then this is not how a Reform Democrat responds.

    Hey - Kos is human.
    Who is always their ideal self?
    I just hope a cooler response is coming soon.

    America began begins with freedom from King George's empire.

    by bribri on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 10:59:50 PM PDT

    •  nothing makes money quite like (3.63)
      pimping women's breasts.  Guy's gotta make a living right?
      •  I don't know how the ads work (4.00)
        If Kos actively selected it, it was a poor choice.
        I'm more concerned about Kos's reaction.
        Male privilege is the bulwark of the Right's ideology, and we can't simultaneously embrace sexism and win the fight against the Right.

        America began begins with freedom from King George's empire.

        by bribri on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:14:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  but, unfortunately, you're right (none)
        once the internet left the realm of the military and academia, online porn was what spearheaded most of its advancement in terms of commercial development.

        i'm not saying it's a good thing.

        my particular view on porn in general is something my folks taught me:
        "if you can't play with something nicely, you shouldn't play with it at all"

        I'm not anti-porn per se, but its modern manifestations often have too many negative effects to conscientously support it as an industry.

        Of course, there are more egalitarian and woman-friendly purveyors of sex-positive goods.  I recommend those (Eve's garden, Good vibrations, etc.)

        America began begins with freedom from King George's empire.

        by bribri on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:21:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Guy? (none)
        The best paid people in the porn industry are women.
      •  Autumn Pumpkin Pie (none)
        A delicious pumpkin pie, spiced with ginger and cinnamon.

        INGREDIENTS:

            * 1 1/4 cups pumpkin puree, canned or fresh
            * 3/4 cup sugar
            * 1/2 teaspoon salt
            * 1/4 teaspoon ground ginger
            * 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
            * 1 teaspoon all-purpose flour
            * 2 eggs, lightly beaten
            * 1 cup evaporated milk, undiluted
            * 2 tablespoons water
            * 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
            * 1 unbaked pastry shell (9-inch)

        PREPARATION:
        Combine pumpkin, sugar, salt, spices, and flour in a medium mixing bowl. Add eggs; mix well. Add evaporated milk, water, and vanilla; mix well. Pour into pastry-lined pie pan. Bake at 400° for 15 minutes; reduce heat to 350° and bake about 35 minutes longer, or until center is set.

        (I'm sure I'm now going to be attacked because posting a pumpkin pie recipe in this context could be precived by some as sexist </snark>)

        Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

        by Goldfish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:13:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  ratings abuse (none)
        Knock off the ratings abuse.  TeresaInPa has a right to say what she wants.  I have not always agreed with TeresaInPa, but giving her ones and zeros for having an opinion?  

        "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program." - G.W. Bush; 11/2/00

        by pilotweed on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 04:21:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She's getting ones and zeros (none)
          Because she's devisive, dishonest, and for all her protests against sexism, is unabashedly sexist. She's also engaged in retailtory ratings against people who fairly rated her more objectionable comments in the past. The ratings she's receiving have less to do with what she's saying here, and more with the fact she does not participate in good faith.

          And all that not withstanding, I'd like to know if you were as outraged by the ratings some of the people who took Kos's side, or simplely didn't want top crucify him, took for their opinions. I'd hate to think you only defend the opinions you agree with.

          Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

          by Goldfish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:37:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  better late than never (none)
            I am outraged by any ratings that are given in a retaliatory manner.  No, I do not defend only the opinions I agree with.  As  far as her comments, after a few days of reading some areas where she has posted, I am inclined to agree with your comments in the first paragraph.  Nice touch in the last sentence.  Especially since I really didn't take sides in this whole debate.  I have agreements with both sides of this issue, I just was  not crazy about the level of discourse.  

            "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program." - G.W. Bush; 11/2/00

            by pilotweed on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 01:00:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Congratulations kos (4.00)
    now you've got everybody all pissed off at each other and troll rating each other.  That has to be good for this community.

    "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." - MLK

    by JLFinch on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:02:36 PM PDT

  •  The Ad works. (2.25)
    Kos is right.

    The Ad works.  I watched it this afternoon.  As a result, it got me to look at the website for the show... find out that Erika Eleniak is going to be one of the contestants.

    And now I'm planning to watch the show this wednesday.

    Are we sure the "sanctimonious womens studies" people aren't James Dobson plants?

  •  Judge Not? (4.00)
    I'm quoting you here: "I won't sit there and judge pop culture and act as gatekeeper to what I think is "appropriate", and what isn't."

    Well, no.  But you follow that sentence with this, again, quoting you here: "And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site."

    So you evidently have no trouble at all judging the people who found the ad offensive.

    One word for that -- Hypocrite!

    Now I suppose Act II in this farce will be reading all the right-wing nut bloggers' gleeful citing of this diary and the choice comments in the thread once the sun comes up.

    How will it feel to be hoist on your own petard, Markos?

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:07:46 PM PDT

  •  I am offended OFFENDED damn it! (4.00)
    That the ad features such a horrible, inane song as "pour some sugar on me" in it.

    The hair metal revisionist history has gone entirely too far, I cannot post on a site that supports Def Leppard apologists.

    goodbye forever!

    -C.

    Electronic miscounts of votes are a fact, not a theory, so let's do something about it!

    by Neutron on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:09:18 PM PDT

  •  Democrats: the Party of Disapproval (4.00)
    Motto: "My values can beat the shit out of your values."

    'Republicans'? Y'mean Privatizing, Downsizing, Court-Packing, Red Ink Republicans?

    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:09:49 PM PDT

  •  What's the big deal? (3.00)
    Since when did anyone care about some ridiculous ad for a show no one is going to watch on TBS?

    If you want to protest the show fine - write TBS, write their advertisers, whatever.  You shouldn't be complaining about this to Kos.

    His response here might have been a little over the top, but I can certainly understand it.  I don't get near the mail he does but trust me, there are times when I want to go off on people for being complete asshats.

    If anyone thinks that by vitrue of running this ad Kos is making some statement against women's rights you need to pay closer attention.  This isn't anything new in our culture - hell go look at a damn gap ad or video on MTV and you'll see the same or worse.  Why don't we resolve to not worry about this crap until the battle on abortion has been won or when women are actually getting paid equally.

    Let's also remember that this is his website, his creation, his livlihood and he pays the bills so we can all hang out here - if he wants to blow off a little stream it is certainly his right to do so.

    Take your country back one dollar at a time at BuyBlue.org

    by Raven Brooks on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:10:50 PM PDT

    •  And naturally (4.00)
      it's the right of members of the community to blow right back.

      Imo, this community is quite a different place than, say, a household in which the father 'has  the right' to smack the shit out of his family because he pays the bills.

      In any case, the community can't be seperated from the website. Kos may have initiated the website, but it exists as it currently does -- with the ability to generate its own revenue -- due to the community.  Meaning the entire community.

  •  Pie Ad (3.88)
    Hi Kos -

    You must be responsible for the ads you display.  Sexism may seem trivial to some, but in actuality is a primary cause of many of the intractible problems of our day.  For example, Democrats lost in a large part because the Republicans exploited the sexism ingrained in our society.

    Men or women may or may not be attractive; we should have no problem with this.  But selling a television show (after all a vehicle for commercials) by means of titillation takes advantage of the perpetuation of the stereotype that certain/most/all female humans are here to be dominated by others (heterosexual males or homosexual females) and to be valued primarily for the extent of their attractiveness.

    Being sexually attracted to others is one of the most pleasing aspects of living.  But seeing the world consciously or unconsciously in terms of the value-laden binary differences that begin with gender causes many of problems that affect our interpretations, decisions, and valuation of the many events we are faced with every minute of our lives.

    The invention of the M/F binary was the base for all similar artificial differences.  For a more eloquent description of the wrongness of this ad, please read the book "Masculine Domination" by Pierre Bordieu.

    Artclone

  •  Is this place about values, or about hits and $$$? (3.71)
    I thought that liberals tried to stay above the belt in politics; let the conservatives sell sex and be hypocrites.  But apparently not.  What's next?  Porno?  Those sites get a lot of hits, too, I bet.  Your not the gatekeeper of taste or whatever that means, but be careful what dross you let your site be associated with.  I thought this was a community, not one man's fight to make money.

    And criticizing the "feminists": very nice, very redolent of Rush Limbaugh.  You've been drifting towards demonization of "feminists" for a while now, so I'm glad to see maybe you've broken through...

    •  right... (none)
      i don't even post her much, or know much about kos, but I do know people like you piss me off.

      You seem to think your worldview is ideal.  I like mine.  GWB likes his.  And Kos is cool with his.  At the end of the day it's his site.  He started it, we all take advantage of the benefits it offered.  

      The truth is I've kno a few indepedent woman that I have a lot of respect for, but I've never met a self-proclaimed feminist that I cared for.  Its not that I wish things to be that way, but something in my gut makes people like you disagreeable to me.  Just like I'm sure something in your gut makes my worldview disagreeable to you.  But just like you can't wake up tommorrow and declare yourself respect for GWB, I can't wake up and decide to respect individuals like urself.  Is Kos demonizing feminists? I'm not even sure, but in my opinion you demonize yourselves when you base arguments on emotion instead of logic.

      But that is just my opinion, and I understand that's all it is.  If you were able to look and realize that all you have is opinions too and not truths that demand respect then my opinion would change.  But either way it doesn't matter much.

      •  I don't know why you're aiming at me... (none)
        Kos does have his worldview, I do, we all do.  And it's his site.  I don't think anyone here would claim eternal truth (though most wouldn't jump through such hurdles to diffuse our opinions in endless qualifications such as yourself). But guess what, we've all invested something here: time, effort, emotion, etc.  He can post what he wants, there's no doubt of that, and I'm perfectly fine with that.  The subject matter itself--that doesn't even bother me immensely (save that I hate HATE reality television).  Yet, when people get upset (and really, this is a surprise?), out comes the angry denouncement of the "cultural left" (to use asshat Keith Thompson's tag), and I--yes, me myself, IMHO--feel that this only naturalizes and aids the conservatives' use of "queers, abortionists, and feminists" as the ultimate bad-guys in America.  Those upset folks are complaining about something they feel strongly about: isn't this what the site is all about?

        As for the justification that--beyond the dubious didactic use this commotion will inevitably be assigned--the ad is just a really good money-maker, then why not adds for other sexy shows, or sex-sites themselves?  Where's the line, if I might humbly ask?

        •  ok (none)
          I understand the points you make in your initial paragraph, but I think its unfair to expect tolerance of every faction on the left.  You claim criticism of certain groups aids the right, I think the actions of certain groups aids the right.

          And yes, people have a right to complain, and the other side has a right to respond as they please.  I look at this issue like if I owned this site, and busted my ass to support the progressive community I'd take it as an insult if members of the community question my integrity.  So why is it acceptable to insult a person one way, but not another?  Its ok to  speak offensively towards the site's owner, but god forbid he insults you back.

          To me the only difference between one side and the other on this issue is who was more 'polite.'

          As far as where should the line be drawn.  That's not for me to decide.  I don't own the site, I'm not responsible for who feels comfortable coming here and who doesn't.  Maybe it pleases kos to attract male chauvanist assholes that like seeing naked women?  Its really up to him.

      •  Independent vs. Feminists (4.00)
        The truth is I've kno a few indepedent woman that I have a lot of respect for, but I've never met a self-proclaimed feminist that I cared for.

        What the heck?  You know, something that's really sad to me is seeing young women who have NO CLUE about what we went through before the women's movement who live independently, make independent decisions, have careers that they would have had little access to only 30 years ago, and can live on their own, choose to stay single, etc. without censure from society....and yet say they're not feminists.  

        They would NEVER have had these opportunities to be independent if the women's movement hadn't of paved the way.  This type of attitude is a huge slap in the face of every woman who fought for women's rights and went through a lot of personal pain for it.

        As a young woman, I remember having my butt pinched, guys at the office purposely finding ways to "accidently" touch my breasts, being the victim of many vulgar comments (like guys looking at me and talking about "having lunch at the Y"), etc.  When I complained to my boss, he laughed and said "get used to it or get out".  Since most of my friends were experiencing similar indignities at their jobs, where the heck would I go?

        So, we have made these things unacceptable and even something that someone can sue and get satisfaction over, but yet the young women who are benefiting from all of this aren't feminists?

        Geesh......I'm at a point in my life where my career matters little to me.  I'm all for going back to the 1950s and letting these young women see how it was for themselves.  (BTW, I don't really mean that but, at the same time, I think it would serve them right.)

        •  This is sad for you (none)
          as there are so many wonderful women (and men) who are feminists -- and they include many fine students today who do get so much out of women's history, among other women's studies courses.

          They want to learn of the past, and when they do, their responses and reactions would impress you as they do me.  They are astonished at the behaviors we had to endure (some still do endure them in their workplaces, sadly).  They are amazed at all that has been accomplished.  They are awed by having to do as much or more as their grandmothers and mothers did, so as not to lose the gains made.  

          They would call you a hero.  Actually, they do say so of women like you, and I wish you could hear it.  As for the 1950s, they are absolutely thrown by films such as "The Pill" (PBS a few years ago, in a lot of libraries) about the way it was for so many women not that long ago who rarely completed college or had careers.

          Of course, there are the others.  There always are the others in any courses . . . as there are here.  We have to focus on the best and the brightest to keep our purpose (and sometimes our sanity:-).

          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

          by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 04:57:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's nice... (none)
            ...but I have a feeling most of these folks who understand and are willing to learn are in the minority.  At least from the tenor of most of the posts here.  I hope I'm wrong.  Your post gives me a tad of hope.
            •  Well, a ttad of hope (none)
              is about all I have some teaching days, too -- so that's when I try to focus on the other days, the other students.  Frankly, a teacher without hope better find a new field, and fast.:-)

              Just a thought, if you're near a campus that has women's studies:  if it's like mine, we welcome community participation.  We have a listserv open to all, we publicize events -- speakers, plays, informal potlucks, etc. -- there and elsewhere.  We have mailing lists, too, for the less computer-literate than you (but bless the 'Net, as our strapped budgets can't keep up with soaring printing and postal costs).  We also have an auditing program, free, for the older (since I think you've said you're "of an age," as am I:-) community members who want to take any courses.  

              A neighbor of mine, a retired grade-school teacher, has taken more than 80! courses that way.  And she tutors foreign students to help them improve their papers -- and she has more hope for the future, from doing so, than anyone I know. . . .  So even if you're not near a campus with women's studies, there are other listservs and mailing lists to know what's happening in those true marketplaces of ideas.

              Btw, I will say that most of my students, at a campus where most are working their way through, probably aren't here.  That's why it may help to go where they are.:-)

              Btw2, good to see you where you are now, too, at another blog. . . .  I've so enjoyed and/or been educated by your frank posts on your life experiences, funkycamper.

              "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

              by Cream City on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 11:54:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for the interesting info (none)
                regarding women's studies.

                To be honest, I've never taken an "official" woman or gender studies course.  And I haven't spent much time reading what might be called feminist books, magazines, or articles.  I know that there are many theories out there regarding gender issues that I'm ignorant about.

                However, I am a woman and I have worked as a social worker so I believe I have a lot of practical experience in these areas.  Working with women who have been victims of domestic violence and/or sexual assault is an eye-opening experience into the undercurrent of oppression against women that still exists in this country even though most of us, most of the time, present the PC face of honoring equality to the world.

                While I have been bashed a bit here for being "too emotionally" in my responses to posts on this issue, this makes me chuckle.  I'm usually told that I'm an excellent debater who sticks to the issues and facts without getting emotional.  I really appreciate hearing that.  However, I can't tell you how many times that appreciation has turned to surprise, if not downright shock, when the person complimenting me has seen fit to add: "You argue like a man." as if that was a compliment.  Geesh....and these types of comments have come from "enlightened" men who think they are supportive of women's issues.

                I really don't think I'll be leaving Kos entirely.  There's too much good stuff on here to entirely leave.  It would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  However, I doubt it will be my first or my primary place to hang out anymore.  I like that "other place".  It's certainly inhabited by more people with respectful attitudes than I've seen here lately.  

                You're great!  Have a good day!

                •  Aha, that's why talking with you (none)
                  is like talking with a sister-in-law who is a social worker.  You all are amazing.  I could not do what you do on a daily basis; I always feel more centered (with less griping about students who can't correctly place an apostrophe:-) after talking with her.  I certainly would have days when it's hard to hold hope if I faced what you do in your work.

                  Btw, the sis-in-law was one of the first students in women's studies at my campus -- part of that first generation, and I'm a bit older, so I never took a women's studies course, per se, either; I got to be part of creating them.  So I'm also always still trying to catch up, especially on feminist theory (not my field).

                  And some of my best (not always in grades but always in understanding and empathy, about the course material as well as with others in class) students are social work majors -- many, many of whom, men as well as women, take women's studies courses today.  And they learn so much in their field work from folks like you that they bring back to our coursework.  You are "co-teachers"!

                  "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                  by Cream City on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 12:42:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is such a nice conversation! (none)
                    How nice...considering how hot it's been here lately.  :-)

                    Unfortunately, I'm a bit burned out on the social worker trade right now.  I lost my job at the end of December....block grant cuts from the Feds resulted in the State cutting funding to the program I worked for to about 30% of prior levels.  Many of us lost our jobs.  And funding is so poor for social work jobs right now, that there's not much out there.  And what is out there is either contract work with low pay, no benefits; or simply some of the lowest paying positions I've seen in a LONG time.  I didn't go to college to earn $12/hour.  And the stress of this work just isn't worth it to me for that pay.

                    I've been taking a break but need to find something soon.  Things are getting tight.  However, I have no idea what to do.  I've been trying to do a lot of self-exploration to make some decisions but I haven't been too succesful yet.

                    It's been nice talking with you here...and I'm sure I"ll be seeing you at Booman, too!  

                    •  Ohhh (none)
                      I know, I know -- my brother/lawyer at the EEOC may lose his job, with the federal budget cutbacks.  I'm so sorry.

                      But hang in there; some of my (several, I'm so old:-) setbacks have been so hard . . . but have ended up sending me in directions I never thought I could do.  (I'm on my fourth career.)

                      May the self-exploration go well -- and may the savings stretch far for you.  Let's stay in touch on Booman. . . .

                      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                      by Cream City on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 09:16:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  wow. (none)
          Let me get the jist of your post..

          How dare any indepedent woman from my generation not declare herself a feminist?

          That seems to be your main point, and its completely absurd.  You wonder why I say I have a hard time respecting self-proclaimed feminists?  Maybe because I don't care much for anyone with an arrogant know-it-all attitude.

          I also don't care much for anyone that wants to argue their emotions all day.  What the hell kind of debate are we supposed to have when you declare yourself offended by the mere existence of my opinion?  

          •  I'm not a feminists are usually hypocrites (none)
            Yes, those who enjoy all the benefits of the feminist movement including the ability to be independent and then don't consider themselves feminists are hypocrites, imho.  If you're not a feminist, then what are you?  An anti-feminist?  Part of the Phyllis Schafly crowd?  How does that make any sense?

            You know, in 99% of my political activities, discussions, debates, and presentations (I'm very active politically in places besides the blogosphere), I'm commended for making lucid, pragmatic, and reasoned presentations.  That's nice to hear.  But it's also not unusual for some jackass to say "I enjoy listening to you because you argue like a man."  What the fuck?  I guess only men are reasonable and lucid?  More stereotypical tripe that should be dead by this day and age.

            I'm sorry you think I'm nothing but an hysteric.  But these discussions and the attitudes of many folks here like you are wounding.  Normally I don't get emotional about issues.  However, this case hits too close to the heart.  The last few nights I've started to have nightmares remembering the severe sexual harrassment I received as a young woman in work settings.  I'm angry that I've had a weight problem since my mid-20's.  Therapy indicates that I gained weight in order to protect myself from such abuses.  After all, male co-workers and bosses don't tend to get sexually agressment with fat women.  I'm not the only woman who bears emotional scars from these type of events.

            Is it any wonder that some of us would get angry about the insensitivities expressed here?  We are dismissed.  We are told that we should fight alongside you as long as we're good little women, remain quiet, stand by our men, and focus on "important issues" (i.e. those that matter to men).  

            I suggest you watch "Iron-Jawed Angels", an HBO movie out on DVD.  It might prove enlightening.  The events these women endured during the Suffragists era echo in what is being said and done right here, today, on these forums.  I really thought we had come farther than this.

    •  What's next porno? (none)
      Let me tell you there has been many a recommended diary talking about defending porno.

      There have been many porno shots that I have deleted here to the outcry of MANY.

      I think your comment over the top and borderline ridiculous.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:01:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Big boobs VS hostility (4.00)
        Well, you've gotta do what you feel is necessary, but I think these are apt questions.
        I have no problem with porn, generally.  I just don't think this is the correct venue for it.  And, while this might not be porn, I don't see Kos making an attempt to reassure his readers that this is different and "Pickaboob" ads aren't around the corner. Where's the line?  Nipple exposure?  Wardrobe malfunction?  This isn't even much more tasteless than a lot of anti-GWB ads, but I still feel that there is something of a slippage occurring here.  When hit-value overrides a sense of concern for tact and how our own people would perceive this, compounded by a greivous failure to address these concerns without lashing out at an important constiuency in our efforts--how are we supposed to take all of this?  Seems like a lot of hostility to me, and that's what bothers me, much more than a couple of silicone boobs.  This issue might be more worth your attention.
  •  hmmmmm..... (none)
    .....i disagree with the repugs.....i TRY to ignore them.......they won't die......

    There are many who lust for the simple answers of doctrine or decree. They are on the left and right. They are terrorists of the mind. -- A. Bartlett Giamatti

    by FemiNazi on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:18:08 PM PDT

  •  damn me, damn me to hell (4.00)
    I understand why some people would be offended by the ad, I understand why people would be offended by Kos's response, and I am sympathetic to your outrage, but I'm a hetero male who has worked at stripclubs, and has dated women who think stripping for a living is empowering, and that the uptight feminst crowd needs to stop worrying about them and fight the battles that really count, pay equity, affordable college education(so they don't have to strip for a living while in school), and deal with the real explotation of young girls in foreign countries who are sold into prostitution.  

    I live a block from the women's studies capital of the east coast, Smith College, and I'm currently dating one of the students. I asked her what she thought of the ad, and she chuckled and said it was dumb, but nothing to get all worked up over.

    absolute freedom for one individual undoubtedly limit's the freedom of another.

    by jbou on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:18:30 PM PDT

  •  Damn... (2.66)
    I've been zero rated at the Daily Kos for the use or insufficient disapproval of one of the following terms;

    bonzangas, titties, big ass titties, jambalies, hooters, honkers... did I miss any?

     

  •  Hmm. (4.00)
    Wow... didn't expect that.

    I don't know if the ad is demeaning to women or not. I don't know whether it hurts our agenda or not. I do know that it's incredibly stupid, and that's sometimes just as bad.

    I like hot chicks. I like the concepts of hot chicks having pie fights. Whatev. But there's something about the alchemy of combining those concepts with reality television and banner ads that creates a whole big batch of stupid.

    My worry would be that this lassez faire attitude towards advertisers would lead to many more ads of this sort. I believe that it would kinda hurt how seriously the 'outside' world would take our community if they showed up and all the ads were of piefights and lady-parts. I love the lady-parts, but I do think we're up to serious business here and in the current climate of the RWCM trying to marginalize internet advocacy I'd like to give them as little ammo as possible.

    I'm not a prude and I have a irreverant sense of humor that gets me in trouble a lot, but I find myself rather disappointed with Kos's reply.

    It's his website and his to do with as he damn well pleases, and I know I'll certainly be here for a long, long time. But I don't think that sincere concerns from a large portion of the constituency here should be dismissed so glibly.

    •  My sentiments exactly.... (4.00)
      My worry would be that this lassez faire attitude towards advertisers would lead to many more ads of this sort. I believe that it would kinda hurt how seriously the 'outside' world would take our community if they showed up and all the ads were of piefights and lady-parts. I love the lady-parts, but I do think we're up to serious business here and in the current climate of the RWCM trying to marginalize internet advocacy I'd like to give them as little ammo as possible.

      It's not the sex, it's the stupid!

  •  Actually it is different (none)
    one group is being sanctimonious in an effort to reduce sexism.

    the other is being sanctimonious in an effort to justify sexism.

    but both are equally sanctimonious.  that's for sure.

    maybe you need another update.

    •  No It Isn't (none)
      One group wants to censor what the rest of us can say & see.

      The other group doesn't give a shit that women get sexual in an ad for "The Real Gilligans Island".

      Do you realize were arguing about a show on CABLE for God's sake?

      •  i've argued about less (none)
        should i feel bad about responding?   it only took about 23 seconds to post my comment.  i probably could have done something else with that 23 seconds....  like watch the last 23 seconds of that ad again.

        damn another 48 seconds wasted here.

        i.  just.   can't...  stop.

  •  And one last thing... (4.00)
    Giving someone a troll rating because you don't like what they have to say is a really chickenshit thing to do.  The rating system is in place for reason and that reason isn't to troll rate people you disagree with.

    This thread is rife with that, it needs to stop.

    Take your country back one dollar at a time at BuyBlue.org

    by Raven Brooks on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:30:00 PM PDT

  •  Ooohh, An update. Time to grab another beer. (4.00)

    Midwest Center for American Values - Progressive ideas in an easy to swallow pill.

    by ETinKC on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:31:00 PM PDT

  •  Excellent `Update' Kos... (none)
  •  Now that Kos... (4.00)
    ...has made a sincere effort to wipe the pie from his face, I think someone, ideally with more knowledge of the current state of the field of women's studies than myself, should post a diary about how today's feminists are not the sanctimonious folks that so many people have seen them as being. I get the sense that though many of us recognize the importance of women's rights, there's a residual discomfort with stereotypical "feminism" that has to be overcome.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:32:52 PM PDT

    •  And? (none)
      Some credit for acknowledging the mistake right?

      And the diary idea is a sound one.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:44:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So when Kos says, as he does now (none)
        in his update, that "I honestly didn't mean to smear anyone who has ever taken a women's studies course, or majored or minored or gotten an advance degree in it" -- that includes those of us who teach in women's studies? I didn't see that in there. . . .

        So I'm not sure that he -- or certainly so many others whose posts we read here -- are a receptive audience.  Students want to learn, and we have lots of those who need our time now.

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:50:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are parking in the wrong place (none)
          I have no doubt you have much knowledge that I could learn on the subject.

          But I don't trust you anymore.

          I found you dishonest in discussing the NARAL issue with me.

          Try this line on someone else. You have used up your credit with me.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:04:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just about a week after you (none)
            used up yours with me, speaking of dishonesty.

            But see, this is a public posting, so it really, really isn't all about you. . . .

            "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

            by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:11:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There you go again (none)
              You replied to MY comment.

              And OF COURSE I used up mine with you. Riiight.

              What else would you say? How I did so remains a mystery.

              I told you how you used up yours with me.

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:25:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Put the gun down (none)
    Come off the roof and put a shirt on, and we can talk about this downtown over a nice cup of cocoa.

    I whined about the ad in the Open Thread on like thurs or fri.  Ask anyone who still engages in the ancient art of 'zines or free weeklies or any of those type of things, phone sex and call girl ads promise the hugest bundle of cash, if only they are willing to sell your soul, and your readership, to the devil.  I once got so pissed off at this lefty free weekly here in the Bay Area because they ran this ad from some company that violated some leftist cause or another, and they printed my letter in the next issue, along with their one line response - 'hey, atleast we don't run phone sex ads'.

    Are those chicks hot?  Um... yeah.  I didn't have the 'degrading women' problem.  People who complain about that stuff from the left quickly start sounding like Christians.  Sexuality is great, and should be celebrated.  It's just there's a time and place for everything, and this site is neither the time or place. I hold this site to a higher standard, and the ad just seemed kind of out of place here.  In fact, you should probably feel proud that the community here holds this blog in such high regard that they complain about something possibly sullying it.  But unfortunately, you can't take that sense of pride to the bank and use it to pay those bandwidth charges.  As long as you keep away from those spyware ads on the Drudgereport, I'll keep coming back.

  •  One more thing (4.00)
    When you hit that little pulldown menu thing to rate people, you see this:

    Don't pull out your gun unless you've determined use of force is necessary.

  •  Curb Your Enthusiasm On Daily Kos (none)
    This whole thing feels like an episode on "CYE" where people get pissed at Larry David for saying or doing something that offends them.
  •  Trying (3.90)
     to think of other situations where a group that generally falls under the progressive umbrellla would be told to basically "fuck off." And to have their concerns cast aside as not important. It's not really up to men to decide what is or should be important to women.

    And if there are still any idiots who think the objections to this  ad have anything to do with sex, I suggest you go back to the original diary and read it more carefully.

    The thing we have learned here tonight is the fact that women not only will not be supported, but will also be mocked and otherwise abused when they dare to raise issues important to them.

    Like someone above commented, I could basically give a shit about that ad. But the ad becomes a springboard from which to explore the real issues having to do with gender and power in the world.

    it is interesting to see the comments of many of the people here, and to see how they would fit quite comfortably into any conservative republican bachelor party of the sort GWB and his cronies probably attend.  And yet these same people consider the objections to corporate marketing and control of the female image as a conservatively-based thing. Quite ironic really. A fine example of men banding together to face the common enemy: women. The brotherhood of man, guess it really does ultimately transcend political affiliations.

    •  Bullshit (4.00)
      "The thing we have learned here tonight is the fact that women not only will not be supported, but will also be mocked and otherwise abused when they dare to raise issues important to them."

      Total unmitigated bullshit. I take personal offense to that slanderous lie.

      And a lie it is.

      How dare you? kos is rightly taken to task for a serious mistake - he apologizes for it in the update and you choose to sweepingly call the site anti-women.

      You have some nerve.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:59:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Be my guest (4.00)
        take all the "personal' offense you want. Then go back and read (esp. the early part) of this diary and show me just how my feeling unwelcome here is erroneous. The site is populated by quite a few proud "anti-feminists" as far as I can tell from these posts.

        Yeah, he apologized, that's nice. It was before my post, however. I might have toned down my initial reaction to it, or I might not have, since at this point  the diary has transcended Kos's individual remarks and incorporates many voices eagerly agreeing with his original post. Now that so much ample (oooh sexy) evidence has been posted to uphold the assertion that this place is hostile to women, I've not changed my opinion. You certainly haven't changed it.

        And BTW you are the one who has some nerve. Are you female? I didn't think so. What you know about a woman's experience on this board or in the world amounts to nil.

        •  Well (none)
          Ignore my actual words if you like.

          Cuz you did.

          Let me know when you respond to it.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:32:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Likewise (none)
            Ignore my actual words if you like.
            Cuz you did.
            Let me know when you respond to it.
            •  Hmm (none)
              Your first words? I did not. My first response was a reaction to them.

              You made a sweeping false generalization about the site.

              It was bullshit.

              The comment from kos and some idiots on this thread gives you the evidence you need? Un- fucking believable.

              Finally, I will respond to your second response now. You state that I personally give you no evidence to counter your impression.

              Is that because I criticized YOU, and you are a woman? that's a dangerous game you know.

               

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:51:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Just (4.00)
                read your own post. You say "bullshit" you say "slanderous" lies. Where are the links to all the diaries full of support for the  "women's issues." Esp. the ones with lots of men participating. That's evidence, not you shouting liar, liar at me.  Hence, you gave no evidence. I gave you what you asked for,  a small sample, but enough to serve as example of the attitude I've seen in the few weeks I've been here on the diaries when the subject is a "woman's" issue. And a reflection of the attitude I've seen in society in the whole of my life here when the subject is "women's issues."

                When I say you don't know what it is like to be a woman, the point is it can't be expected for men to know how it is for women, any more than women can know what men's experience is like.  

                And this is precisely why listening, instead of ridiculing, women's accounts of their own experience is appreciated. And nobody is even saying you must agree, but we deserve more than the snide, even celebratory tone of the posts here, dismissively cackling at something that can be an important issue for many women.

                It sure let's us know that we don't count.

                And anyway who decides if the place is friendly to women. You?

                Why are you feeling so personally attacked anyway? If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

                Good night, I am going to bed now. Guess that means you get the last word.

  •  I admit (4.00)
    to being a newbie to Daily Kos, but it would seem to me as though someone who has started a blog where liberals and democrats can meet and communicate, simply isn't a sexist or an anti-feminist. Why, it's even more ridiculous than a homosexual Republican! But seriously though, I think the recent update makes things clearer and shows to us that the poster of the diary isn't a sexist or a hater of women.
  •  Ya know what Kos (3.96)
    I don't have a problem with the ad, such as it is.. which I haven't even looked at.

    But I think your tone-deafness to women's issues has a lot to do with your age -- and yes, I'm old enough to be your goddamned mother, so I'll talk like one.

    Just what is, to me, a small, extremist set looking for signs of female subjugation under every rock.

    A "small extremist set looking for signs of female subjugation..."

    Well how de do ... words like that were used by every male chauvanist pig (remember those?) seeking to keep the male-privilege status quo in place back in the 70s and beyond.

    You say we are sounding like Lieberman and sanctimonious right-wingers .... well, OK, if you want to go with the "sounds like" angle, you sound like EVERY KNEE-JERK MISOGYNIST I'VE EVER KNOWN  for the last 50 years or so. Now I don't think you ARE a misogynist, just as you know we are not Lieberman or right wing nuts. It's ridiculous to make comparisons like that.  You know very well we are not Lieberman or Dobson, and if we are "sanctimonious" about this ad, maybe it's because some of us remember what it was like before it was generally agreed that women should not be treated like objects existing solely for the pleasure of men.

    You are too young to remember the way things were back then.  You don't know what we had to go through to get to the point we are at where we can freely speak up about the things done to women. OK, I know you've read about it, but you weren't THERE.  You don't know what it FELT like to be excluded because of your sex, or treated as not worth anything.

    I personally don't thing you have a RIGHT to pass judgement on what people here feel about this ad.  What's it to you?

    •  Wait.. (none)
      If you didn't see the ad, how can you be sure that it actually seriously relates to women's issues?
      •  She didn't say (4.00)
        the ad had anything to do with women's issues; she said Kos' comments did.  

        I'm one of those libertine, Nietzschean liberals who have little time for morals.  The only thing that bothered me about that ad was that the video was fuzzy, even though I was connecting through broadband.  And the warning that the director's cut was only for a mature audience was a hopeless disappointment.

        That said, Kos' reply was offensive and juvenile.  There's plenty of porn-friendly, Nietzschen feminists out there, such that Kos only showed how ignorant he is of the feminist movement to paint with such a broad and dismissive brush.  

        •  Well, the comment was: (none)
          "tone-deafness with women's issues".

          So I was wondering which issues we were talking about here.

          •  Kos' Women's Issues (4.00)
            "I don't have a problem with the ad, such as it is.. which I haven't even looked at.

            But I think your tone-deafness to women's issues has a lot to do with your age[..."

            She has no problem with the ad.

            She has a problem with Kos' reply.  Ie., Kos' reply shows a tone-deafness towards women's issues, not the ad.

            •  Nono.. (none)
              I meant "which women's issues". Because I fail to see the ad itself as an issue, and if she didn't see the ad, how could she know it was an "issue"?

              You pointed out that there are general "women's issues". Ok then, what are they, and how was Kos tonedeaf to them?

              •  Jeez (none)
                Haven't you been reading this thread??

                The issue is not the ad.  The issue is Kos' summary, dismissive, and insulting attack at anyone who might call themselves a feminist with his typically ill-phrased "sactimonous women's studies set."  That is the issue to which he was tone-deaf.

                If you are a white, hetero male, which I'm guessing you are, I can understand how you don't get it.

                •  Nope. (none)
                  Sorry, that's not it. Yes, people took offense at the words that he used. I know that.

                  Is that being "tonedeaf to women's issues"?

                  And please don't pull the "if you're not X you can't ever understand issues relating to X" thing.. besides, looking at your name, you're probably a man too.

                  •  Why (4.00)
                    would someone who is clued in to women's issues and concerns resort to such language?  You make it seem like he just got a bit clumsy.  I don't see it that way, and neither to many others here.  His petulant stance towards the issue, expressed in the words he chose, seem to show his real beliefs on the importance of the women's movement.

                    And of course I'm a male--I was looking for nudity in the ad; that's what was disappointing about it.  

                    Still, do you deny that you are a white, hetero male?

                    •  Sheesh. (none)
                      I guess that when someone uses the term "tonedeaf to women's issues" I expect them to have examples of Kos' attitude to specific issues (other than this silly ad, which she admitted not seeing).

                      So I would like to know which issues these are.

                      You can speculate that Kos may not be in tune with women's issues judging by the words he used, but that's not what I was looking for; that seems like speculation to me.

                      Oh well, the original poster of the comment has apparently left, so there's no point in continuing this.

                      And sure, I'm lily white and male.

                      •  Dude (4.00)
                        Did you miss the original complaints?  They were bothered by the reinforcement of the objectification and infantilization of women on an ad that appears on a supposedly liberal blog.

                        The issue is how to respond to such complaints.  Are they right?  Are they wrong?  Isn't this an issue we should think about and give some consideration to?  

                        From Kos' reply, the answer is "no."  Screw whatever the "sactimonous women's studies set" says.  And he added arrogantly, "Me, I'll focus on more important shit."  

                        Lily white males have lots of privileges that they are entirely clueless of.  It's they who most often get irritated with supposed "extremist sets looking for subjegation under every rock."  If you want to prove me wrong, ok.

                        •  Man. (none)
                          They were bothered by the reinforcement of the objectification and infantilization of women on an ad that appears on a supposedly liberal blog.

                          That brings us back to the ad, which she didn't see, so how could she know if it was an issue that Kos was tonedeaf to?

                          Oh well, time for me to bail this thread.

                          •  Huh?? (4.00)
                            She read the complaints, so she had an idea of what was in the ad.

                            Then she read Kos' summary dismissal and slur against those complaining.  

                            As simple as that.  Doesn't matter if she saw the ad or not.  The issue is Kos' non-interest in the feminist objection to objectification and infantilization.

    •  Which of these are acceptable? (4.00)
      A. But I honestly didn't mean to smear every gay person. Just what is, to me, a small, extremist set looking for signs of gay subjugation under every rock.

      B. But I honestly didn't mean to smear every latino person. Just what is, to me, a small, extremist set looking for signs of latino subjugation under every rock.

      C. But I honestly didn't mean to smear every asian person. Just what is, to me, a small, extremist set looking for signs of asian subjugation under every rock.

      D. But I honestly didn't mean to smear every black person. Just what is, to me, a small, extremist set looking for signs of black subjugation under every rock.  

      E. But I honestly didn't mean to smear anyone who has ever taken a women's studies course, or majored or minored or gotten an advance degree in it. Just what is, to me, a small, extremist set looking for signs of female subjugation under every rock.

      "A psychotic drowns in the very same stuff a mystic swims in."
      Pema Chodron

      by jeebs on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:05:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you're saying... (none)
        "woman" = "anyone who has ever taken a women's studies course, or majored or minored or gotten an advance degree in it"

        Your analogy doesn't work.  Sorry.  No matter how offensive it is, equating a smear against Women's Studies students/teachers with a smear against all women is bull.

        They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

        by TheCrimsonKid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:35:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  E = kos' words, not mine (none)

          "A psychotic drowns in the very same stuff a mystic swims in."
          Pema Chodron

          by jeebs on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:56:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your point? (none)
            You included Kos' words as an E to a sequence of 4 other statements.  In those four previous statements, the slur is not against (insert oppressed group here), but against... yada, yada, yada.

            Your "E", by taking Kos' words, DOES seek to make the equivalency I pointed out, precisely because of its place in the sequence.

            You asked us which of the statements in your comment would be acceptable.  You then took 4 statements explicitly naming an oppressed group, and the comparison to the 5th falls apart because there isn't an equivalency there.  In my opinion, Kos' words are perfectly acceptable.  I'll leave it to others as to whether they are sufficient.

            They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

            by TheCrimsonKid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:32:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Am I too dense? (none)
          I thought that was the writer's point in making that comment.  Am I wrong?
      •  You can't compare those statements. (none)
        Because, for them to be equivalent, "anyone who has ever taken a women's ... " must be equal to "every woman", and that is clearly not true.
      •  I think (4.00)
        they're all perfectly acceptable or not, depending on the intent of the speaker. Here's a 1950s version:

        "But I honestly didn't mean to smear every Republican. Just what is, to me, a small extremist set looking for signs of communist conspiracy under every rock."

        That works for me too (in retrospect, I kind of like Ike, for example, and he didn't think much of McCarthy).

        I think any narrowly focused group has a tendency to extremism in a minority of its membership, and it's valid to point that out, no matter how strongly we identify with the overall aims of the group. It makes very little difference whether it's soccer fans, feminists or anti-communists - the bell curve still applies in nearly every case.

        The assertion is arguable in any or all of the cases you listed, and I wouldn't automatically assume it's evidence of thought-crime or hatred.

        We all go a little mad sometimes - Norman Bates

        by badger on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:48:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you are correct (4.00)
          however, my guess is that if a large group of posters from one of the other (black, gay, latino, asian, whatever, ) groups protested  over an ad they found offensive, there would have been an entirely different tone of response, both from kos and the community at large.  

          Granted, this is purely speculation on my part, and I'm a relative newcomer, have read maybe a hundred diaries total.  But I assume that if that hypothetical occurred, say a large group of gay, or black, kossacks protested an ad, the community reaction might well first be a presumption of legitimacy of the claim, rather than the opposite.   I think the tone of the dialogue would be a great deal more serious and collegial.  Granted, some of that might well be knee-jerk PC, but there would be the underlying premise of legitimacy of the protest, as opposed to so much outright ridicule and dismissal by people outside the protesting group.

          Personally, I was kind of offended but not horrified or seriously put off by the ad or kos' running it.  What really bothered me is the pile on of so many community members automatically disregarding the legitimacy of the protests against the ad.

          It's one thing to respectfully disagree with someone, it's another to dismiss them out of hand.  And it's yet quite another to characterize them as sanctimonious, humorless, anti-sex, extremist, utopian, militant, etc, etc, etc.  Basically, to not hear what they are saying.

          my last 2 cents

          "A psychotic drowns in the very same stuff a mystic swims in."
          Pema Chodron

          by jeebs on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:58:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  context... (none)
      "A "small extremist set looking for signs of female subjugation..."

      Well how de do ... words like that were used by every male chauvanist pig (remember those?) seeking to keep the male-privilege status quo in place back in the 70s and beyond."

      you're probably right, but kos is not a chauvinist pig and this is not the 70's.  that is to say, kos is light years behind such troglodytes on the sexism-o-meter; the worst he can do is the tip of their iceberg.

      beyond that, his statement is a very accurate description.  there are some people of all ideological stripes who relentlessly hunt for evidence of their pet persecution crusade.  hell, fristians have been doing it for centuries...everything is a lion to them.  

      it's just a fact that there are members of the feminist movement who take things a little too far. almost as much a tautology as the notion that every philosophy will have its extremists.  

  •  lesbianic (4.00)
    I learned a new word.  Don't know when I'll have the opportunity to use it, but there, I have it just in case it ever comes up.

    I also turned the ads back on so I could see what all the commotion is about!

    Kos, it just doesn't strike me as belonging here.  I would prefer to see you be a bit more discriminating, but then I'm not paying the bills.

    Whatever you want to do is pretty much okay with me.  Thank you for not minding if I am offended. :)

    Please sign Congressman John Conyers' letter asking the President to come clean about Iraq.

    by OLinda on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:40:10 PM PDT

  •  The update is welcome. (4.00)
    Please give your "Uh... mustn't say it quite like that" reflex a bit more time to kick in next time you're about to do a post concerning women's attitudes to something.

    Three times would be a trend and all that.

  •  'preciate the update, Kos (none)
    A very fair acknowledgment.

    Now maybe things can cool down a bit and we can get something constructive out of all this.

    And we'll all float on okay - Modest Mouse

    by Linnaeus on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:42:23 PM PDT

  •  Update (none)
    Well done.

    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

    by Armando on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:42:56 PM PDT

  •  Kos, you are in dire need (3.55)
    of a woman's studies group.  Your insistance that anyone who would object to that add must be an extremist is, I can only guess, a function of your having no fucking clue about what sexism is and what effects it has on society.
    There are a lot of MEN here (since clearly you can't stand the idea of listening to older wiser women)who  have been around long enough to "get it" .  You really should listen to some of them.
    •  Here's Something... (4.00)
      ...That some of us don't get. The argument used here has been that it reinforces gender stereotypes & is exploitative. This is basically the Andrea Dworkin theories on sexuality.

      I also think it's where the Women's Rights movement becomes more like Jerry Farwell & the Christian Right. The argument that seeing women in sexy outfits or in PLAYBOY is detrimental to society is ABSOLUTELY the same as saying that movies & video games cause violence or children to misbehave. It's the same reactionary crap.

      If you're smart, what's wrong with making money with your brains. If you're athletic, what's wrong with making money with your abilities. If you're attractive, what's wrong with being able to use it?

      • Should we fight for the right of women to paid equal to men? ABSOLUTELY
      • Should we fight for the right of women to safely make choices about their own bodies? ABSOLUTELY
      • Should we fight for the right of women to have the same opportunities as everyone else? ABSOLUTELY
      Should people get upset about 2 women getting water poured on them in a commercial? HELL NO!!!
      •  Best comment. (none)
        That's the best comment I've seen on this entire thread. Thanks.
      •  People a helluva lot more .... (4.00)
        ...moderate than Andrea Dworkin think that ads and other images like the one in question reinforce stereotypes and are exploitative.  

        **

        Writing dialog George Lucas so terrible at is. --Yoda

        Visit The Next Hurrah

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:19:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  LIkewise, the opposite (none)
          People a helluva a lot more moderate than Andrea Dworkin do NOT think that ads and other images like the one in quesiton are problematic at all.  

          Maybe the ad reinforces stereotypes.   On the other hand, my the stereotype it reinforces is that hot women are hot.

          When I watched that ad, these things did NOT cross my mind:

          "They must be bimbos

          They must be stupid.

          They must be brainless.

          All they are good for is looking at."

          However, these thought DID cross my mind:

          "Wow, they are hot.

          Man, I wish I was there.

          Boy, they sure are out of my league.

          Wow, they are hot."

          And that is what went through 95% of the straight male populations heads that watched that ad.  As for the other 5% who thought they were bimbos, airheads, etc. - well, who cares.  More than 5% of the car driving population are complete retards, but I don't think we should ban cars because of it.

          I can understand and appreciate why some battles were fought in the past.  But just because they needed to be fought in the past, does not mean they need to be fought today.

          Politics is so much better when there's sex. - Louis XIV

          by goblue72 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:27:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  But What Is The Difference Between... (none)
          ...That line of logic & the ones that say:
          • Video Games Cause People To Kill
          • The Media Promotes A Gay Lifestyle
          • Movies Promote Promiscuity Among Kids
          If you believe that seeing an ad with 2 girls causes some detrimental damage to society & the psyche of people who see it, then it's not that far of a leap to open the door to the conservative lines of bullshit in the examples above.
          •  I didn't say that these ads ... (4.00)
            ...CAUSE sexism, I said they reinforce it and exploit it.

            But, if your argument is that media imagery doesn't have an effect on people, this will be news to companies that spend $500 billion on such imagery to sell their products each year.

            And to the researchers who found a link between viewing large amounts of violence and violent behavior in studies dating back to The Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee Report of 1972, the 1982 National Institute of Mental Health follow-up to that study, and other more recent studies. One was the American Psychological Association's Violence in Youth: Psychology's Response, which concluded that there were four long-term effects of viewing violence:

             - Increased aggressiveness and anti-social behavior.
             - Increased fear of becoming a victim.
             - Increased desensitization to violence and to victims of violence.
             - Increased appetite for violence in entertainment and in real life.

            Since that study, the American Medical Association and the Academy of Pediatrics have done their own studies confirming these effects.

            **

            Writing dialog George Lucas so terrible at is. --Yoda

            Visit The Next Hurrah

            by Meteor Blades on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:43:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I don't care what she thinks (4.00)
        I have a perfectly good brain of my own and she has never been someone I was particularly impressed by.
  •  All this about who's paying the bills (4.00)
    -- a line I've seen countless times here now -- suggests the desperate need for media studies as much as women's studies.

    We are what is sold here to advertisers.  They are buying based on the number of users here.

    So Kos is selling us.  

    Just as your newspaper is not selling ads based on the number of pages but the number of readers.  

    And just as with the msm, we get to complain if we don't like what we see.  

    The bigger the audience, the more potential complaints -- especially if you don't set ad standards.  It comes with the territory, Kos.  

    Unless what you really think this country needs is an even larger audience of passives who sit and take whatever is put in front of them.

    "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

    by Cream City on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:46:30 PM PDT

    •  Oh (none)
      I'll reject an ad if I think it's inappropriate. And it's happened a tiny handful of times.

      I just don't see anything wrong with this ad.

      •  Frankly, it just seemed such a stupid ad (4.00)
        to me, aimed at stupid people, that I thought the advertiser was the stupid one in placing it here.  And, as noted above, I wasn't even near a computer yesterday so missed the Pie Fight thread but saw so many allusions to it tonight that I clicked here to find out what it was about.

        But then I found out that, sadly, the advertiser had a better handle on the audience than I did.

        At least you have apologized.  Another hundred or so apologies to go. . . .

        Btw, I am not among the people to whom you apologized.  I teach in women's studies.

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:17:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Remarkable. (none)
          You teach in women's studies, and yet you've never taken a women's studies course? I'm intrigued.
          •  Yep, many of us in women's studies (4.00)
            are soooo old that we didn't have women's studies when we were in school.  The same thing is true, btw, of many a woman or man in other fields that are relatively new -- after all, as one of my (male) profs put it about pedagogy,  Socrates didn't learn by the Socratic method.:-)

            I knew, for example, the founder of the first computer science studies program in my state, thirty years ago -- before PCs.  He had studied and taught math, which led him into the field . . . and led him and his students to travel many miles weekly to a massive mainframe at a company that let them learn there at night.  

            I did take a women's history course twenty years after my undergrad studies, which led me to start studying the field, but it wasn't a women's studies course per se -- in a women's studies program and other qualifiers.

            And at many schools like mine, there aren't women studies faculty per se, either.  We teach courses in our own departments but with a focus on -- more correctly -- gender (as well as race and ethnicity and class, in my case) studies.  So women in biology teach the Biology of Women, women in English teach Women in Literature, etc.

            There really are very few graduate programs in women's studies even at the master's level -- and I don't know if there are any that offer the Ph.D. in the field (I will have to check that! never occurred to me to ask) . . . but then, they're all Doctors of Philosophy in the end. since it's all about ideas -- new ideas.  And any commencement is, by definition, but a beginning:-)

            "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

            by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:46:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fascinating. (none)
              I'm a young whippersnapper--I got my B.S. in Computer Science not too long ago, and I know my college has a decent graduate program for that as well. I didn't take any courses on gender per se, but then, I had enough trouble with the humanities I did take. Except for science fiction and philosophy of science, those were a lot of fun (and no doubt much more left-brain oriented).
            •  There are a few programs (4.00)
              http://www.smith.edu/wst/gradlinks.html is a decent list of graduate programs available for women's studies, though I don't know how comprehensive it is.  As a women's studies major who has wanted to take on a more disciplined and interdisciplinary approach to women's studies, I've found that it's hard to find a program that I really like precisely because so many programs are still young and relatively unstructured compared to their counterparts in the social sciences or even other interdisciplinary studies.

              And as a guy who thinks that kos's choice of this ad is part of the problem (albeit not for the reasons that most people are using), I think this thread makes it obvious that a lot of people still don't understand the pervasive nature of patriarchy or heteronormative behavior or the victories that second-wave feminism struggled to achieve.  And a lot of people are still ignorant about how sexuality can be both adored and even worshipped without having to promote and accept sex that reifies specific harmful female stereotypes.  It's a lot easier to ignore all of this when none of these issues ever affect you in the workplace or in society, regardless of gender.

              •  Thanks -- I had forgotten (none)
                hearing of a few of these programs.  And they are so few, and with each doctoral program probably turning out only a few a year (if that; many programs in many fields have years with no grads), it shows how few of those teaching in the field would have Ph.D.'s in it.  (As four-year degree universities most often require Ph.D.'s and are far more likely to have women's studies programs than are small colleges, two-year campuses, etc.)

                And thank heavens, in a way, as the current hiring situation for faculty is horrendous in so many states, owing to state budgets and the economy.  (So the hiring of parttime "ad hocs" or temporary fulltime teachers is 'way up under the business plan for so many systems, as so preferred by the business types running them -- no matter that students find fulltime faculty hard to find when they need honors committee members, master's thesis committee members, etc.)

                On the other hand, for your purposes: many fine Ph.D. programs in many fields may look relatively unstructured, but a Ph.D. is supposed to be self-designed to a considerable extent (after a year or so, submitting a massive proposed course plan based on your diss. topic, getting it approved by a faculty committee or two, etc.) after a couple of core courses.

                Just some thoughts, if it helps you think through this.  Best wishes as you do. . . .

                "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:11:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Reaction was to the post more than the ad (none)
        The ad: stupid, unfortunate, but ignorable (except for several hundred out of the 50K Kossacks here, because the ad is, after all, offensive).

        Some got worked up over the ad. This is to be expected in such a large community.
        Many times that number got worked up over your  comments (now with welcomed clarifications).  This is a good thing.

        Please be sure to keep this distinction in mind.

        Wondering "Geez, why all this over a stupid ad?" is unproductive and intellectually dishonest.

        America began begins with freedom from King George's empire.

        by bribri on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:43:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There's your whole problem (4.00)
        You don't see what other people might find offencive in the ad.

        And your comments to them are over-the-top and calculated to insult in a manner that is most discouraging.  Your remarks are hostile and intemperate in the extreme.

        I have been trying to divine your political philosophy in the time I've been posting to this site, and as far as I can work out, you seem to think that women are one of the groups who are keeping the Democrats from claiming the "Bubba vote".  Gun control advocates, women's rights advocates, the environmentalists, are all groups you perceive as "nuisance groups" who ought to shut their mouths so the Democrats can take power.  Oh, and unions as well (I remember all too well the front page diary in which you wished an early demise upon unionised airlnes).  That's a sizable portion of the Democratic constituency--and you apparently believe that they should be quiet and acquiesce in the denigration of their causes so that the Democrats can take power.

        But take power for what purpose?  I was just wondering why the folk I mentioned should support a Democratic Party that views them with contempt and hostility.  I can't think of a single reason.

        I also find it deeply troubling that you have invited people to leave your site.  I'm guessing that it won't be a large exodus, and that you can survive losing the few who will leave.

        Well, so much for the Kos "community"--this is obviously a monarchy, and the king can do no wrong.  So people either have to take what you dish out or else vote with their feet.

        So it's not a "community" at all but rather just a discussion forum--which is what I thought it was all along.  The word "community" implies an association in which all voices are heard and respected; that clearly is not the case on DKos.

        There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

        by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 11:40:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  A QUOTE (3.75)
    When asked whether women's studies were still needed, Dr. Lerner laughed. "For 4,000 years, men have defined culture by looking at the activities of other men," she said, putting on her professorial voice. "The minute we started questioning it, the first question was, 'Well, when are you going to stop separating yourself out and mainstream?'"

    "Give us another 4,000 years," she said, "and we'll talk about mainstreaming."

    Give kos another 4,000 years, and maybe he'll get it?

    •  The great Gerda Lerner! (none)
      I bet.  Thank you for bringing this into the discussion -- if only to remind us that she is still with us, still writing books (including her autobiographical account of life in Nazi Germany; she knows oppression), etc. . . .

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:14:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why did this have to (none)
    be a front page item?  Why not just comment on one of the prior diaries on this subject?

    "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." - MLK

    by JLFinch on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:50:10 PM PDT

  •  as bea rumford said: (none)
    The worst thing that could possibly happen would be to not be used for anything by anybody.

    Kurt Vonnegut, Sirens of Titan

  •  Good update (none)
    Good update, thanks for the clarification and parsing of your different positions on the "justifiably concerned" and the "sanctimoniously alarmist."

    Daily Kos. Daily K-os. Daily Chaos. Oh my God!

    by Addison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 11:52:06 PM PDT

  •  Confused (4.00)
    Saw the pie ad, thought it looked garish and tasteless.  Ignored it.

    Read the diary written a couple of days ago by someone who found the pie ad offensive.  Registered their concerns, which seemed legitimate.  Had to go back and look at the ad again, since it is so unappealing I never even bothered to look closely.  Was not one of the 8,000 who clicked on it.

    I can ignore the ad, but I can also understand why some women would find it offensive.  It perpetuates a stereotype of women as over-blown, brainless, babyish bimbos.  

    Was browsing through the diaries and came across some references to Markos' response and how it was a real low point.  Scrolled down to find and read it.

    Hey, Markos!  I saw you on TV, and you came across like a super-cool, savvy, well-informed, articulate, and all-around loveable guy.  My son, who watched with me, received the same impression.  So I sincerely believe that you have more resources to respond to the concerns about the pie ad than you used in this post.

    And here's what really gets me.  If it happened to be someone from the gay community who was offended by something, it would be one thing to disagree with them and feel they were being oversensitive, but if someone responded by saying that we shouldn't let the "sanctimonious gay studies set play that role on the site," they would be banned.  

    If someone from the Hispanic community was offended by something, it would be one thing to disagree with them and feel they were being oversensitive, but if someone responded by saying that we shouldn't let the "sanctimonious Hispanic studies set play that role on the site," they would be troll-rated into oblivion.  

    If someone from the African-American community was offended by something, it would be one thing to disagree with them and feel they were being oversensitive, but if someone responded by saying that we shouldn't let the "sanctimonious African-American studies set play that role on this site," their comments would be zeroed out in seconds.

    Etc.

    And it's not just that one remark, it's the whole tone of the response that fairly barks of intolerance and insensitivity to women's very legitimate concerns about being stereotyped as over-blown, brainless, babyish, bimbos,

    Why is it, and I would appreciate if someone could please explain this to me, that there are so many progressives who can't apply same standards to sexism that they apply to racism and homophobia?

  •  Pie Fight (none)
    I saw the ad and thought it was so over-the-top ridiculous I had to laugh. However, I wonder if kos would change his tune had the commercial used gay men in thongs? Just a thought about what's acceptable or not.
    •  Why would I change my tune? (none)
      And I'll say this, gay people wouldn't complain about it, since they embrace their sexuality.

      Just check out the blogads on OutSports.com.

    •  Or maybe (4.00)
      if it was black men throwing watermelons...or Mexicans throwing burritos...

      Didn't see the ad and missed all the excitement; I was in full Loving Spouse mode taking care of my sick one Saturday then spent Sunday catching up on the stuff that didn't get done Saturday. Therefore, I have no comment on the controversy itself.

      But I'm confused -- we're told that if we see something that offends us in the MSM, we're supposed to respond. Now, some folks saw something here that offends them and they're told it's no big deal, so just shut up?

      It's early...maybe I just need my morning cup of tea...

      "It's an unnerving thought that we may be the living universe's supreme achievement and its worst nightmare simultaneously." -- Bill Bryson

      by Cali Scribe on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:21:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree -- I raised the same query (none)
        although not so well, about the hypocrisy of attacking the msm but not examining ourselves here.  I was trying to imagine the lte column in my paper with similar responses from the editors!

        Then again, the recent responses along these lines have cleared away a lot of confusion and mixed messages from some on this site.

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:27:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Kos, please provide more ads like this (none)
    Or whatever else strikes your fancy, as long as it doesn't involve an ad supporting a GOP candidate. ;)

    It never fails to amaze me the desire of some liberals to create a world that is perfectly santitized, perfectly devoid of crudeness, perfectly in harmony in all aspects.  A utopia in short.  God save us from ever having to live in such a world.  I think I would need to shoot myself.

    It is this same impulse that desires of politics to be an instrument of this utopianism and which complains when it always falls short.  That demands that progressives be "better" than the other side.  To "not stoop to their level."  To "rise above it."  All we need to do is get money of out politics and it will all be better.   All we need to do is fix the media and it will all be better.  All we need to do is fix the election system and it will all be better.  All we need to do is explain our facts and it will all be better...

    None of which is true, and all of which fails to see that politics, by its very nature the pursuit of power by groups and individuals, never has been and never can be, pure and clean.  It will always be dirty, slimy, rough, vicious and nasty.  It will also be, at the same time, hopeful, generous, idealist and open.   Just like our fellow human beings, the dirty nasty horny  wonderful little piggies that we are.  A world like THAT, I can live in.

     

    Politics is so much better when there's sex. - Louis XIV

    by goblue72 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:03:48 AM PDT

  •  THIS IS HOW YOU DEFEND (4.00)
    advertisements that are disagreeable.

    A lesson, courtesy of The Nation

    Almost twenty-five years ago Nation editors--in consultation with our readers, our publisher and various well-wishers in the journalistic community--responding to reader complaints about an advertisement for mink coats, crafted and published an ad policy. Here is what we said at that time.

    "Although the relationship of the First Amendment to commercial advertising is complex, we start with a strong presumption against banning advertisers because we disapprove of, or even abhor, their political or social views. But we reserve (and exercise) the right to attack them in our editorial columns.

    "The Nation does not consider itself bound by the standards that must be applied to just any public forum. Our pages are primarily given over to articles that are consistent with the views of the editors. While we also publish articles and letters from readers that diverge from, or even diametrically contradict, the views of the editors, this is not out of a sense that our pages should be open to all or because we believe we are obliged to achieve balance. Whatever we publish appears in the magazine because in our judgment the views expressed deserve to be called to the attention of our readers by us. We are a magazine of limited circulation that enjoys no monopoly on the attention of our readers. They obtain other views in other places, and, through that process, determine for themselves what views to accept or reject.

    "Advertising is different. We accept it not to further the views of The Nation but to help pay the costs of publishing. We start, therefore, with the presumption that we will accept advertising even if the views expressed are repugnant to the editors. The only limits are those that grow out of our interest in assuring that the advertising does not impede our use of Nation editorial columns to say what we want. We assume that our readers will have sufficient knowledge to judge for themselves the merits of commonly known products (such as cigarettes).

    "In imposing these limits we will refrain from making judgments based on our opinions of the particular views expressed in an advertisement. If the purpose of the advertisement is to sell a product or service rather than to express a view, we will allow ourselves greater rein in making judgments about suitability. This reflects our view that commerce is less sacrosanct than political speech.

    "When we open our pages to political advertising that may be repugnant to the editors, we are furthering our editorial commitment to freedom of speech and using space in which we refrain from articulating editorial policy in a way that fosters diversity in expression of opinion."

    Over the years, although particular readers have objected to particular ads, on balance, we believe this policy has served the magazine and its readers well. Of course, we do not agree with the Office of National Drug Control Policy that buying occasional "dime bags" of marijuana supports terrorism. Letters like those of John Browner, Sandra Schachat, Susan Bright, Matthew Landkammer, Charles Monroe-Kane and Robert Field suggest to us that most of our readers don't either. They seem to agree that the way to fight bad speech is with better speech. We hope that on reflection Donald Hodel, Chris Kirshbaum and others who have objected to our running this ad, after weighing the pros and cons, will reconsider.

    THE EDITORS

  •  I'm wondering (4.00)
    if you realize what you have lost here tonight.

    "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." - MLK

    by JLFinch on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:12:46 AM PDT

  •  I hate this ad! (4.00)
    I catch it out of the corner of my eye over and over as I try to ignore it and read other things. It say's to me "you are a plaything for men". It says "you are not welcome here". It says "you are tasty, like a piece of meat"
    Kos you say I should ignore it. If I add to the controversy I am just encouraging it. I disagree. If someone tells a sexist joke in my presence and I laugh I am encouraging it. If I ignore the joke I am encouraging more of the same. If I complain and make someone uncomfortable their behavior might change. Feel uncomfortable now. These ads stink and they make me feel like meat. You should feel bad for putting them up. If the behavior doesn't change and the women leave the room that is not good for you or this community.
     
    •  Should we all leave if we're offended? (4.00)
      On the average of every other day or so, I read some diary equating soldiers and veterans with rapists and/or serial killers and/or gangsters on DK.
      I've seen things written here to the effect that the troops in Iraq deserve whatever happens to them because they "joined a murder factory," or "are all racist pricks," or any number of other things that would immediately get them kicked out of here if they were writing in the same tone about women, homosexuals, or people of the non-caucasian persuasion.  Instead, quite a few of these diaries get a large number of 'me too' posts.

      Should all the Kossack veterans leave?

      Wounded Warrior Project Give till it hurts. They already did.

      by soonergrunt on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:58:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just a bunch of troublemakers (4.00)
    "Just what is, to me, a small, extremist set looking for signs of female subjugation under every rock."

    Funny how that reminds me of conservatives who say similar things about Democrats who have the temerity to speak up about the war, torture, the ruining of the military, the fiscal deficits, and so on.

    They say, "Just a bunch of troublemakers who hate America, hate Bush, and go looking for bad news  about our military. If you don't like America, you can always leave."  

    Well, fuck that shit.

    War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

    by Margot on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:28:01 AM PDT

  •  OK... (4.00)
    When I first started looking at this thread there were 71 comments, now there are 532.  

    A lot of people have written about how inconsequential this topic is, how the ad and any discussion of it is utterly pointless, how we should be discussing real issues.  But, 532 comments later people are still posting their opinions, it's almost as if the "Pie Fight" ad has helped us discover that this really is an important issue to a lot of people. Well holy shit.

    Some people care a lot about Kos' right to free speech, his ability to run his site as he sees fit, the necessity for him to "make a buck".  Others feel that the ad smacks of "sexism", "mysogny" or is just distatefully non-progressive.  Others just love big ol titties and gotta give the shout-out to the man-in-charge, while some are comfortable with making their brand of sexuality everyone elses, that's freedom right?

    Wow, what a great topic for discussion!  Maybe it isn't so pointless after all.  Way to go Kos!  We all love big titties covered in pie and meaningful polical discussion.  What a great site!

    Good night!

    bush is a weed in the garden of democracy.

    by miss love on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:29:44 AM PDT

    •  LMAO! thanks! =) (n/t) (none)

      America began begins with freedom from King George's empire.

      by bribri on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:46:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My first post, and it will probably be burried.... (4.00)
      I read the first 250 posts to this diary before going to bed two hours ago and haven't been able to sleep because I didn't see a point brought up that I think is worth mentioning....please forgive me if this has been mentioned in the last 300 posts, but I'm too tired to read them all right now.

      First, Kos, I absolutely support your right to feel any way you want about the pie ad and about people's response to the ad. I found the "women's studies" comment offensive and the reasons have been hashed in detail in other posts, so I won't elaborate on that.

      What concerns me are other comments about "lightening up" and about how the ad was about sex and how "sex sells." What bothers me about that? Well, I kind of think the ad was as much about "sex" as rape is about physical attraction. There's nothing in that ad, or any other ad that focuses specifically upon body parts, whether male or female, that takes a balanced view of sex as an emotional, spiritual AND physical activity. Ads such as that one reduce sex, and the participants in any sexual act, to nothing but the sum of their body parts. In other words, such ads objectify sex and human beings.

      Now, why would that be a problem? Here's where I depend upon the "progressive" bent of the site and the participants on this site to try and look beneath the obvious frivolity of the ad itself. Look at this in political terms: Objectification is what we do to our enemies - the "evil ones" to quote our favorite prez - to help us justify forcing our will upon them. Isn't that what we did to slaves? To the Native Americans? To the people of Iraq? To the "Terrorist insurgents" who simply "hate freedom?" Thinking of these groups in black and white, rather than as multi-layered, allows us to dominate, hurt and kill much more easily than we could if we tried to understand all the nuances of their needs/causes, etc.

      Just how do silly little ads and comments like "sanctimonious women's studies" hurt women? Take a look at some of these stats:

      Somewhere in America a woman is battered, usually by her intimate partner, every 15 seconds. (UN Study On The Status of Women, Year 2000)

      Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.

      Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996.

      Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.

      In the year 2001, more than half a million American women (588,490 women) were victims of nonfatal violence committed by an intimate partner.

      On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day.

      Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the United States.  

      In 48 population-based surveys from around the world, 10-69 percent of women reported
      being physically assaulted by an intimate male partner at some point in their lives

      Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime

      At least 60 million girls who would otherwise be expected to be alive are "missing" from various populations, mostly in Asia, as a result of sex-selective abortions, infanticide or neglect. (UN On The Status of Women, Year 2000)

      Study after study after study has shown that these incidences of violence can be attributed directly to the way in which women are objectified by the institutions in the society in which they live. Media - including ads and blogs - are primary channels for communicating a society's dominant paradigm. Thus, the images that appear in a society's media do, indeed, impact people living in that society.

      We all know this....why else would be be incensed that the present administration doesn't allow images of dead soldiers returning to the US to be shown, for example? Why would we be angry at that manipulation, but not angry at images that have shown to help support a system where violence against women is institutionalized? I don't understand.

      These ARE political and economic issues - the very issues that I'm presuming you believe to be more important than a bunch of feminists getting their panties in a wad over a pie fight. If progressives truly are committed to subverting dominant paradigms in order to bring more justice to this messed-up world, then that commitment should apply to all citizens of this world - not just to people dying in Iraq, but also to women dying in Uganda from AIDS deliberately transmitted to them from their rapist; to little girls adandoned on street corners or kidnapped or forced into prostitution in Asia; to the 1 in 3 women around the world who have been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in their lifetimes.

      I'm sorry for the long rant, but I just needed to say that I find hope from the progressive movement and would hate to see it lose focus by grabbing on to a few issues, without seeing the whole picture. Justice for all means justice for all. I really think we do ourselves a disservice by closing our minds to issues we believe to be "petty."

      Thanks for listening!

      •  Excellent post! (4.00)
        You said what I've been thinking far better than I could.

        It saddens me that there is such resistance to this.  To be honest, I ignored the first threads about this ad.  In the larger scheme, the ad is just one of many onslaughts that I've learned to ignore.

        However, the responses here are disheartening and disgusting.  I remember being pinched, ridiculed, treated like a toy, and, in general, being disrespected during my early working years by male employees and bosses.  The attitudes expressed by many neanderthals on this board, bring those memories back full force.

        While I was never in an abusive relationship, as a social worker I've worked with many who have been.  

        Anyway, I have nothing succinct to add but just wanted to say kudos for a great post.

  •  this rant brought to you by ambien... (4.00)
    My Ambien is cranking up, so I will be bullet-pointish and stream of conscious-ish. My brain cells are going dormant fast... I'm diving in anyway. You can decide whether I agree with you or not. I'm too tired to figure it out.

    • The ad is utterly stupid and juvenile, and right up there as such cultural wonders as Jackass and The Dumb Ass Show (starring uber-faux males Kimmel and Carolla). There are thousands of utterly stupid and juvenile ads and shows on TV. This is why I watch almost no TV and DV-R right through the commercials. Un-freakin-plug.

    • Never watch ads prefaced by the quote "mmmmm meringue."

    • I have found that being righteously indignant about stupid "sex"-oriented ads doesn't make them go away. The world is full of this shit and I learned that being pissed off about it doesn't fix anything. However, boycotting all of those shows and products does make me feel better.

    • I will not launch into my tirade that psychologically this has nothing to do with "you" being titillated and much more to do with advertisers capitalizing on something emotionally deeper. Advertisers largely just stop at "sex sells" as the theory. The really good and manipulative ones know why, and strum your psyches accordingly. Just turn this shit off the moment it appears. You will be happier.

    • I learned that what I ignore says as much about me as what I fight for. I also learned at some point that I get offended too easily. I get more done when I just say my peace and move on. There's too much shit to do and my mental state requires me to dose my anger.

    • (so instead of moving on...) Men have 900 zillion years of evolution behind the breast-inertia that paralyzes the functioning of 90-some percent of us. You can't beat primal inertia by yelling at it. There is something, however, that separates us from the lower orders of primates. Our brains are still a meter or so north of our genitals, and for most of us our brains theoretically have enough mass to win out. You don't have to think with your dick (though be kind to it as much as possible). It can become a conscious decision. Sentience works.

    • I will admit, I like breasts personally. That said, I turned this commercial off when it came on TV. I found it loathsome and totally un-sexy. I find beauty in things that contain all of their original created parts and chemical makeup. Silicone belongs in my computer, or whatever. I also find beauty in people who treat themselves like human beings. I'm tired of being appealed to in ads as if I'm not an intelligent male who prefers deep, true, diverse beauty to this pathetic facsimile of it.

    • The new Gilligan show is so absolutely stupid looking that it is an affront to the human species. I am driven to more meds by the fact that the human race churns out shit like this. We have honored it too much with our 0s and 1s already it seems. I hope to God we can kill all of this off before an alien species stumbles across crap like this and decides we need to be put out of our mystery.

    • Is anyone more ashamed to be male because of that scrawny dumb ass who plays Gilligan running around with a hat over his crotch. That's Must Not See TV. Ignore battles with scrawny freaks like that guy, and focus on the real goals. My goal is for our son-to-be to grow up in a world-view that isn't saturated by obsessing about everybody's external part configurations. We've had enough eating disorders and patriarchy already in my family.

    • Jesus H. Christmas, Kos. Grrr. What the hell, man?

    • I was under the impression that we were sticking to political ads here, but it's not my site, so whatever. I think our mission statement should be, "If it helps Dems win, we do it. If it don't, we don't." I am just one vote in this kinda-democracy though.

    • The hottest thing I see every day is my pregnant wife, but I'm biased. She could sell me anything. :-) I get to spend the length and breadth of my days with my beautiful partner and best friend, who is seven months into running the Baby Marathon (and running strong!), and will be the most wonderful mother I can imagine. I just want to live up to that standard. As I ponder that while any of the thousand commercials like this one come on, I consider myself lucky. I don't have to buy whatever it is they're sellin', because I always got infinitely more than anything they could possibly give me.

    Yes, I'm being a bit hyperbolic. It's the drugs, but I still mean it. </Ambien-induced rant>

    fuck, i still can't sleep...

    "I am a patriot, and I love my country because my country is all I know."

    by Aragorn for America on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:35:34 AM PDT

    •  Wow (none)
      You said everything so much better than I ever could have. Maybe I need to start taking Ambien.

      BTW, congratulations on your wife's pregnancy! (I'm not sure what the PC way to congratulate a couple on their pregnancy is...but I am too tired to think of it, and you know what I mean...)

      Democrats do it better on the Senate floor.

      by sparklegirl on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:51:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks (none)
        I went back and reread my comment and decided that I should take meds more often. That ended up being the clearest train of thought I've had in a while. Weird.

        Ambien - it's like crack for the insomniac.

        I have no idea how to congratulate people either. It's our first child so we have people falling all over themselves at us. My favorites have been (mostly from my nutty friends):

        • Happy Fertilization!
        • Congratulations on getting laid at least once!
        • I'm so glad both your plumbing works!
        • Congratulations on your pending release of Version 2.0!

        Questions we've most had fun with (with corresponding answers):

        • "Do you want a boy or a girl?" (yes)

        • While being in a store yelling "Duckies!" and "Bunnies!" and "Oh, loooooook!" all over the kids section, someone asks: "Are you excited?" (nope, I'm just practicing my English)

        • "Are you having any cravings?" I respond: "Yes, I LOVE frozen custard chocolate milkshakes. Oh... You're were talking to her."

        All you really need to convey to people is that you are happy for them (or would like to be happy for them in some cases). My wife and I enjoy the warm fuzzies from everyone. Wording isn't important.

        Thanks for the congrats!

        "I am a patriot, and I love my country because my country is all I know."

        by Aragorn for America on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:35:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Best. Comment. Here. (none)

      Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

      by Maryscott OConnor on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:54:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  wow (none)
        I feel like I graduated to the big sandbox. :-)

        Better commenting through chemistry it seems. I should try that more often. :-)

        Controlled substances (legal, of course), huzzah!

        "I am a patriot, and I love my country because my country is all I know."

        by Aragorn for America on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:46:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Damn! (none)
      Well ranted! Too bad Ambien doesn't work for me (keeps me awake all night - go figure)

      "What in the wide, wide world of sports is a-goin' on here?" -- Slim Pickens in "Blazing Saddles";
      "I have more than 2 problems." - the Coach Z

      by AaronInSanDiego on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 12:12:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm happy (3.00)
    I never paid money to support this site, and I certainly am not going to pay any now.

    "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." - MLK

    by JLFinch on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:39:30 AM PDT

  •  Ahh... (4.00)
    Well, it's been a while. I hope everyone's calmed down after that update.

    Can we get a thread group hug?

  •  Absolutely in poor taste (none)
    having two women throw pies at each other should not be allowed on TV. Everyone knows this is what god invented lime Jello for!
  •  When it comes to pies (4.00)
    I'd much rather see them thrown at Ann Coulter.

    Democrats do it better on the Senate floor.

    by sparklegirl on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:54:23 AM PDT

  •  I make this pledge (4.00)
    Although I've advertised on DailyKOS in the past, I won't do so in the future.

    I wasn't at all offended by the pie fight ad, I am offended by Markos' response to the criticism of it and to his attitude toward NARAL.

    I don't like his attitude toward women or women's issues.

  •  I didnt care about the pie fight ad. (4.00)
    Didnt agree with the recommended diary.They did have a point to make and i felt i would have understood it better if i had walked in their shoes all my life.I was respectful of that.
    But what is the point of being dismissive & beating down our own?
  •  I am amazed (3.87)
    at how many openly sexist men there are on this site. I really cannot find anything else to say.
    •  I am also amazed..and very disappointed (4.00)
      I am an older woman, I love this site and spend much time here. Till now, I've been able to ignore most of the posts that were blatantly sexist and disrespectful to women, having long ago learned to pick my battles, and not to sweat the small stuff too much.

      I am so sad to read Kos's response to the objections from some community members members to this ad, and mostly, I see, to his posts that so disrectfully dimissed their concerns. And also sad to see so many of the guys supporting his stance so strongly.  

      I am not leaving over this, but I also certainly don't feel as welcome here as I did at first, or as valued. This was not your intent, I know, Kos, (and supporters of his stance,) but that  is the outcome for many of us. I hope that matters to you: it's hard to think it does, given the tone of your posts, which was generally, "So leave, you don't like what I think: your opinion doesn't matter."

      At the same time, it warms my heart to see the support offered by guys like MB, and others  who DO "get it".  It gives this old womens rights freedom fighter hope; progress has been made, and you are proof of this.

      Perpetuating negative stereotypes that have contributed to the denegration or opression of any group of people is not,in my opinion, a progressive or democratic value. It is also totally unnecessary to interesting, effective human communication among intelligent people.

      Silence is Complicity

      by scribe on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:21:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  me too (3.75)
        I am also disappointed that such a widely-read site has a dismissive attitude towards women's issues.
        •  Add me to the disappointed (4.00)
          I would like to ask Kos, what exactly, besides a revenue, would you lose by removing this ad?  Is it the fear that it's some slippery slope; that the feminazis will start demanding you to use the word "herstory" or present a quota of featured women bloggers?  

          Or, is it the shock that an image that you find amusing and titillating doesn't feel that way to 50 percent of us?  

          I find that some men are remarkably threatened by requests to not shove sexist and offensive images in the face of women.  I mean, it's not like we're telling you guys to throw out your porn.  

          If this were an erotica site or even Collegehumor.com, we wouldn't complain.  Just don't force us to look at it in a forum where we expected to be treated like intellectual equals. It sends the message "Go away. Boys Only."

      •  Kudos (4.00)
        Another excellent post that deserves kudos.

        I usually stay out of these types of discussions.  I ignored the previous thread about the ad.  Yes, I have learned to choose my battles.

        However, the sexist and demeaning comments on this thread by Kos and others is definitely jarring.  I, too, feel less valued and I certainly feel misunderstood.

        I came of age in the 70's when men bosses could still pinch my butt...and frequently did...and I had no recourse.  Lots of other degrading situations happened to me in my younger years.  I thought we had come a long way but, apparently, I have had my head in the sand.  Many of the comments here hit me the same way these degrading acts hit me when I was a young woman.

        I'm a bit stunned that so many of these folks who claim to be progressive can have these attitudes.  I guess we have a lot farther to go than I previously thought.  Sad.

    •  why not name some names? (none)
      who are all these "openly sexist men"? please share.

      "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity" -Yeats

      by jethropalerobber on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (none)
    i think the ad is more a testament to male stupidity than it is to women's subjugation. and yes, i did click on it. but i know it was wrong.
  •  I guess Lieberman went through the $16,200 (none)
    he received from the various porn connected companies - looks like he has to drum up alittle more interest in their products ....

    http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/campaign.php?view=31

  •  Kos shouldn't have apologized (3.16)
    Kos was 100% right with his post.  There are too many PC-freaks focusing on the wrong things and that is why we liberals are perceived as reverse-McCarthyist, humorless ninnies.

    Everyone knew what he meant by "women's studies."     They need to chill and lighten up.

    The other day Blitzer had Dean on and criticized him for generalizing about "Republicans" and eventually Dean backed down, saying, in essence, that he meant the "Republican leadership" not the "voters" and that he should be "more precise" in his language.

    Screw that.  Why is it we liberals have to be "precise" with our language but pothering jackasses like Limbaugh or Bush himself can say whatever the hell they want with impunity?

    Why?  Because of word-fascist, PC ninnies like Blitzer -- and people who were offended by Kos's post.  All overly analytical, all destructive to the broader message.

    These people will drive anyone normal out of our movement until all that is left with the Left is themselves, and then they'll turn on each other.

    Don't apologize Kos.

  •  Pie fight (none)
    I noticed the ad, but thought it was an abberition. I wouldn't have paid any attention at all except for your defense of it, which did turn me off a bit. I thought the objective of this site was politics.
  •  The ad is obviously working in the manner... (none)
    intended.

    How brilliant to drop a bit of titillation into the vat of supposedly rational, higher-order thinking individuals.

    Reminds me of this chemical reaction:

    Video of dropping a large piece of sodium metal into water - CAUTION: For mature audiences only

    Listen to the reaction of the people, hooting and hollering, like the limbic-wired primates we are.

    All because of this:

    2Na(s) + 2H2O(l) --> 2NaOH(aq) + H2(g)

    TBS/Time Warner are measuring the blogosphere "shock test" response in real-time, probably referring to Google site cacheing for responses for the ad placement. And their own server logs for this:

    http://images.blogads.com/lptebjmzlptdpn/dailykos/3237923/readmore?r=4&d=http%3A%2F%2Ftbs.com%2F
    stories%2Fstory%2F0%2C%2C49762%2C00.html

    The indignant fired off the first shot and now the "so what-ers" reply in response.

    And the maelstrom builds.

    In other words, success! And Daily Kos and TBS are the beneficiaries.

    Thanks all for making this event a real winner! What is proven to work will be redone at a reasonable interval (so as not to engender "fatigue"). Expect the next TBS ad to run on here in the next season (if the show is remotely successful).

    Reminds me of the "bigs lips" ad reaction on dKos of a few months ago. Visceral. Just what the doctor ordered.

    "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

    by rgilly on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 04:46:59 AM PDT

  •  Good idea (3.40)
    Sometimes, the best way to kill something you disagree with is to ignore it.

    Truer words were never spoken, which is why I'll be ignoring this website from now on.

    We must believe that with every new atrocity, a fresh-painted Iraqi school blooms like a rosebud in spring.

    by NYCO on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:06:34 AM PDT

  •  Lighten up, Kos (4.00)
    "Lesbianic"?  Say whut?

    I couldn't give a shit about the ad's appearance, but your "women's studies" mewl was as sanctimonious as it gets.  Time for a long look in the mirror. Or else, forget about yellow stars, let's dress up them loudmouth uppity (sic) PC (sic) feminazis top to toe in red, white and blue polyester Wal-Mart chadors.

    Say--speaking of which, what WERE those Daily Kos gender stats, anyhow?

  •  My opinion (4.00)
    First, I'm a guy. I'm a Democrat due to economic and foriegn policy issues. I don't get into the social issues that much.

    I've watched this site shocked at the attitude you've at times shown towards women's rights activists.

    This is what I observe:

    I think you know the comments will upset some people. You are making them anyway to generate discussion.

    Yes, pro-choice women have responded. This is what I notice:

    If the Democratic establishment had as much zeal about national health care, the minimum wage, & other "important" issues as these women have about women's issues, the Democratic Party would have a spine and GWB wouldn't be in the White House another four years.

    I don't mean to offend anyone either

    Health Care For All! http://www.cnhpnow.org/

    by erich398 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:23:33 AM PDT

  •  I Realize No One Is Reading These Comments By Now (3.66)
    But I'm still gonna speak up real quick.

    I saw the banner ad and didn't have a problem with it. What I have a problem with is the insufferably condescending and insulting tone of this post. I realize that the blogosphere is a very alpha male dominated world. That's not an excuse to talk down to a huge segment of your readers.

    •  asdf (4.00)
      Yes, thank you.
    •  I'm still reading... (3.40)
      ...but I'm a patient man.

      And I'm also the alpha-est male of them all.  As an alpha male, I found Kos' response far more offencive than that ridiculous advert, which I ignored until he brought it to my attention.

      Somebody else in this diary said that Kos had "jumped the shark".  Well, perhaps.  What is needed is some serious damage control--but it's obvious that he's not interested in patching up the wounds and moving on.

      Normally, I would say, eh, just forget the whole thing, it's one of those minor tempests that will blow over and is best blotted out.  

      But the nasty, hateful attitude taken by Kos and the frat boy posse on this diary make me think that all this is far from over--and that while the folk on my side have learned a great deal about Kos, et al, they have learned nothing at all.

      There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

      by Shadowthief on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:09:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  kos isn't a misogynist, he's a sell-out (2.50)
    I'm a bit conflicted about the ad itself. A valid argument can be made for running it, and perfectly legitimate arguments can be made that it is sexist and offensive to women. What's particularly distressing to me is the manner in which kos responded to legitimate criticisms of the ad. If I didn't know any better, I'd think that kos was motivated in his attacks by the same thing that motivates a junk yard dog when you threaten to take away his bone.

    What was it that Marx said about "wage slavery?"

    "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

    by chimpwatch on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:49:42 AM PDT

    •  that is what i (none)
      was thinking. kos' outrage(defensiveness) seems to be provoked by his own thin skin about having to sell out to these kinds of advertisements.
      •  i think that we all need to grow up here... (none)
        ...and take off our rose-colored glasses.  whatever kos may have once been (idealistic, well-intentioned, etc etc), it is clear that his primary motive is to begin to make some major coin off of this site.  thus the book deal, the consulting gigs, and the revenue generating ads.  my guess is that he hopes to eventually package this site as part of a larger political consultaancy, sell a stake to some big-money backers, and bank lotsa dough.  that's all well and good, but it means that we all need to adjust our interpretations of his postings, etc to account for monetary motivations.

        from each according to his means, to each according to his needs

        by dummy on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:37:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Was that a shark (4.00)
    I just saw Kos jumping?

    The future ain't what it used to be. Yogi Berra

    by chuckles1 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:06:29 AM PDT

  •  Ad concept didn't bother me, (4.00)
    and I haven't clicked through it.

    I do find the way it was defended somewhat disturbing, though.  Sometimes the way one defends something shows one's level of sensitivity.

    I appreciate Kos for offering a clarification of the "women studies" comment.  Women's issues are not trivial.   We're all Democrats here (and Rebublicans, Greens, Libertarians, etc. too) who want, largely, the same things.  We should be sensitive to each others' concerns.

    Having said that, I will add sensitivity goes both ways.  I agree with a poster above who simply said "Pick you battles. n/t"

    </soapbox>

  •  Thanks for pointing it out (none)
    I think this show warrents some investigation, esepcially Maryanne ;)
  •  (rolls eyes, sighs) (none)
    watched the ad, found it boring... although, as a rock musician, i may have become inured to tittilation.

    two apparently vapid and obviously mammarily-gifted women stage a fake piefight for the cameras so they themselves can make more money when their show airs and all of a sudden it's world war sex around here... sad. i guess Kos didn't have to accept the ad but it's his prerogative, and some people do like a bit of tittie (and he IS latino, after all... while we're making generalizations).

    why do i never hear a pc outcry regarding the media's corresponding infantilization of men?... how they are shown as ninnies and babies who are always trying to sneak out of the house or feign illness so they can go golfing, or drinking beer, with their buddies (the latter at least being more physically strenuous than golf)?

    if we want to break down media stereotypes of the woman (as either a sexually available set of tits or as a frazzled and overworked ovary) the corresponding male stereotypes (the sex-focussed young cock with abs and the high-powered working-man who turns into a whiny flaccid little nub upon crossing the threshold of home) must also be demolished. one won't survive without its corresponding partner in the frame - it is the balance between these sexual stereotypes that keeps them alive. no mooks, no titties. no whiny adult babies, no tired-eyed naggy mums.

    something about a beam and an eye, something something.

    regardless of even this, a certain amount of smut-lite is always going to tickle the airwaves; whether delectable underwired boobies in cherry sauce or the fully shirtless, bronzed and be-beached Fabios of seemingly every women's perfume ad.

    Kos, do what you feel is right. If the residents of every progressive outpost kowtowed to every special-interest group and thus adjusted their message and delivery we'd be found even more boring and tight-assed than the rest of the West already finds us.

    polcors, give us a break! quit posing here, preaching to the converted (even though some of said converted still like boobies - we were raised in this culture, yknaw) and go picket TBS... or a true menace to the self-esteem of womyn (and everybody else) - like Cosmopolitan magazine.

    •  asdf (none)
      why do i never hear a pc outcry regarding the media's corresponding infantilization of men?

      Well, that's easy.  It's because men comprise the "primary demographic".  It would be extremely unsporting of men to have all the power and wealth AND then expect society to burst into tears on their behalf when anyone else has a joke at their expense.

      Outcry is caused when someone who is or has been downtrodden gets stepped on once again by the "primary demographic", who had so effectively kept the rest of us down until about 30 years ago [a tiny fraction of time in the overall scheme].

      Conversely, outcry is not caused when the "primary demographic", who is not and has never been downtrodden by the rest of us, gets kicked in the shin for good measure once or twice by those of us who are just now shaking off the bonds.

    •  you never hear a pc outcry (4.00)
      about the "corresponding" infantilization of men because there is no parallel.

      as I have said on another pie thread, having a few guys in speedos or thongs or sexual objectification of men is NOT the same thing at all because:

      men have millions of other images of themselves to identify with.  the overwhelming supermajority of images of women in the culture send the message that a woman's primary purpose in life is to provide sexual pleasure for men.  there is no corresponding wealth of images in the culture implying that a man's primary purpose in life is to provide sexual pleasure for women.  read that last sentence again--the fact that it seems absurd on its face is proof of how alien the idea is.

      and

      men are frequently shown as having value in the entertainment world in a variety of non-sexual ways.  men in the larger (non-entertainment, if there is still such a thing) world have the power to define their worth in non-sexual ways.  women who try to do this pay a severe price.  if you can think of any woman who has done so and still achieved success, it is likely that she has a huge number of critics filled with vitriolic hate for her precisely because she has refused to play the game.

      it has nothing to do with liking boobies.  breasts in and of themselves are not offensive.  but as someone upthread remarked, we live in a world so constructed for the pleasure of men that the easiest (and in some cases the only) way for a woman to make a good living is by selling her sexuality, to the point of resorting to dangerous surgery as these women apparently have had.

      a woman who freely chooses to share her body with you without financial or cultural coercion or other forms of pressure (some of which are so pervasive as to be all but invisible to men) is a joyful thing and a different matter altogether.

      I don't always agree with Andrea Dworkin (may light perpetual shine upon her) but is we ever get to a world where all sex is voluntary we will not be having this conversation.

      I hate to add to the pie ad outcry but this is all clearly about more than the pie ad now.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:48:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re similar treatment of men (none)
      the studies are there, and many of them.  More above in response to a query as to whether there is men's studies.  Yes, there is; it's called masculinity studies, and it arose from good men awakened by women's studies (now all are called gender studies, btw) to exactly what you see -- that stereotyping one gender requires stereotyping another.  

      Anyway, there are excellent analyses of the macho-man ads, the helpless-man ads, etc., as well as the stupid-man sitcom and cartoon roles.  What a choice is given to guys -- macho cowboy or stupid ad or sitcom daddy who can't figure out how to run a kitchen.

      The portrayals, btw, are increasingly missing the younger market.  I recall my daughter when young, watching an ad that typically showed a man helpless at anything in the kitchen, and she was furious because her dad is a pro at cooking and so much else.

      So I encouraged her to write to the company, and she did -- and she got a good response, far better than the one given here.  And sure enough, a year or so later, we saw an ad that showed not the reverse sexism of the man showing a silly wife how to cook or something -- nope.  

      The company had an ad of a couple cooking together, talking together, cooperating in raising the kids flying through the kitchen, etc.

      Anyway . . . the point is that reverse sexism, as you note, is no healthier than any other form of sexism.  And that listening to your audience is the way to learn, not dismissing it.

      And the point also is that I wish more men would join my daughter in an outcry when dads are made to look dumb -- or impossibly always wise.

      And, finally, the point is that you might find some interesting reading in masculinity studies!  One of my faves, by the way, is by a guy (with the great name of Lance Strait) on the depiction of men in beer commercials.  It may make you want to start home-brewing rather than keep buying what the idiots are selling -- that men are idiots.

      That's

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:54:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  At least wingnuts are honest (3.87)
      It wasn't the ad that was the problem. It was Kos sounding like any old Republican. He hit every cliche, every stereotype there was.  He knew he was going to get shit for it, and he knew it was justified.  

      At least the Repubs are honest about the way they feel about women.

      All the dicks commenting here smugly, "Oh, you're just repressed if you don't like TITTIES!" don't sound any different from any conservative.

     Good job. At least now it's perfectly apparent what this site thinks of women.  

     

    I'll watch Bill O'Reilly when he starts calling his show "The Falafel Factor."

    by ginmar on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:43:08 AM PDT

  •  dont be knee-jerk buffoons..youre better than that (4.00)
    Dumb dumb dumb.

    Do I think the sturmg und drang over the ad is overstated? Probably. Do I think images like this and the unchartable, subjective, but undeniably real chicken-egg-cause-effect on the imagery-pop culture spectrum are legitimate (even important) areas of discussion and debate? Of course, they are. Getting in a hissy fit because a feminist doesn't think an ad that turns you on is entertaining is just plain dumb.

    Casting all who question the impact of such images into one big bag that you dismiss out of hand with throwaway rhetoric coined by the right-wing -- well, before you accuse others of being "no different than the sanctimony we decry from people like Lieberman, Dobson, and the Family Values Coalition," maybe you'd better step back and look in the mirror a bit. That's really beneath you Markos, and you should know better.

    Let's disagree about and debate the status of women in society and the impact of sexual images, as well as the big question as to whether or not there is a "patriarchy" (which would have to effect how we view images of women).

    But dont do the right-wing victim thing. Women have been oppressed, they are oppressed, and the way an oppressed person reacts to his or her oppression may be debatable, but it should never -- NEVER -- be subject to your approval (or mine).

    undercaffeinated

    by odum on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:54:03 AM PDT

    •  well said. (none)
      I understand where the complainers are coming from.  I consider myself a feminist, too.  I don't always like everything I see in the marketplace about women, etc.  But I care more about free expression than taking offense at every little thing.

      "This is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause." - Padme Amidala

      by marjo on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:57:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have no problem with the ad... (none)
    I'm really baffled by the attitude of some on this site that 1) Women don't have the right to flaunt their sexuality and yet 2) Women have the right to with their body whatever they want.

    These women are paid very well for being on this reality show and nobody forced them to do this ad.  If this bothers you so much, start with Hustler and the porn industry, not with this harmless ad.

  •  My, my, my, my, my! (4.00)
    LOL!

    What I missed yesterday when I went out to celebrate my 13th anniversary with my husband and daughter!

    What a "pie fight" this did turn out to be. The irony is rich in the extreme!

    My position can be best summed up by Frank's comment here. He put it much more concisely than I ever could.

    This has nothing to do with feminism at all, although it certainly concerns that subset of traditional feminists who are squeamish about sex and sexuality. I was lucky to have been able to explore my own sexuality freely before AIDS put the kabosh on the type of exploration I was lucky to have experienced. During the period before the pandemic was recognized as such, I went from being a victim of male sexual drives to being in charge of my own sex life.

    I'm afraid that too few women had the benefit of that small window of opportunity that the late 70s and early 80s offered. (The 60s IMHO was the men's playground for sex and women were largely "sex objects" then.)

    I found the ads eye-rollingly humorous. And I found the reactions of many of the women here -- women who continually claim to speak for all women or all real women or all intelligent women -- more than a little irritating. I found it infuriating.

    And ya know. You really don't see ads like that in Europe. You see far more nudity and skin and overt sexuality in European ads. But you don't see such sophomoric ads. And the reason is that Europeans' attitudes about sex have matured whereas, Americans by and large, are stuck in the early adolescent sexual "squeamish phase" their whole lives. And the reaction of many to that ad just proves it!

    We will continue to have ads and entertainment like that in our culture as long as we insist upon enforced sexual squeamishness.

    My 9-year-old daughter contunually amazes me. (I take no credit for this -- her father is the truly great parent.) She is exposed to these images constantly. We live in Manhattan; they can't be escaped! Her interest in sexuality is very healthy and age appropriate. She's curious enough to ask probing questions about sex; she finds certain boys "hot"; and she finds depictions of sexuality like that ad, as well as the boys who like them, "icky" and "silly". She's doing fine with the culture! And I can tell she will be no boy's fool.

    So to the ladies who have a problem with this: get over it and grow up! All the energy put into this prudish huffiness can best be used against things that really matter: like defending a woman's reproductive rights intelligently, stopping US goverment sanctioned torture, getting the troops home, preserving SS for the future, ... I can go on and on!  

    Kos, you're stuck with me. Neither that ad nor your reaction to it offended me in any way. It's the other reactions that got under my skin.

    "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

    by Glinda on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:05:57 AM PDT

    •  frigid feminists just need to get laid, right? (4.00)
      Now, some reactions to this I find bizarre. Why cant people just disagree without dismissing those they disagree with???

      <<This has nothing to do with feminism at all,>>

      Of course it does! You may not like McKinnon and Dworkin, but that doesn't mean you get to undefine them as feminists. People talk about feminism like Christianists talk about Christianity. Growing up Catholic in the rural south, I got to hear about how Catholicism has "nothing to do with Christianity" plenty -- and it only spoke to the parochial myopia of the person who said it every time. Sort of like:

      <<although it certainly concerns that subset of traditional feminists who are squeamish about sex and sexuality.>>

      ...which is a pretty laughable line, based on my own experience in relationships with feminists who reacted against this stuff and were, well... awesome in the sack... Squeamish?? Ha!

      Like it or not, feminism includes an enormous range of thinking/perspectives/thought. Nobody can agree with all of them, as they are mutually exclusive when put side-by-side. Dismissing the ones you don't like as "not real feminists" is small-minded and petty, and sounds no different than the Christianists.

      <<women who continually claim to speak for all women or all real women or all intelligent women -- more than a little irritating. I found it infuriating.>>

      And yet you casually dismiss feminists who are concerned about this stuff as not real feminists. Why is it okay to profess to speak for an entire group of people, so long as you preface it with indignation towards those who profess to speak for an entire group of people? After all, I only got into this when I saw you casually dismissing my concerns and those of people I respect. I didn't see any of my friends in here going after you, yet you belittle them. See THAT is what you do when you choose to personally characterize a group of people who disagree with you, rather than sticking to an honest attempt to rationally debate. You end up arbitrarily insulting plenty of people who you've never met.

      <<that Europeans' attitudes about sex have matured>>

      Oh gawd, I hear this so much, and it drives me batty. First of all, there are lots of different Europeans with different attitudes, and many of them are backwards as well. Take a look at Luc Besson's films for some truly, nauseatingly juvenile and rather neandertalic sex fantasies.

      <<So to the ladies who have a problem with this: get over it and grow up>>

      Maybe you should get over it yourself and listen once and a while to what others are saying -- unless you're afraid of hearing something you dont want to hear. Might make it harder to laugh at some of these media images. That would be inconvenient for you.

      Grow up, indeed -- please.

      undercaffeinated

      by odum on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:30:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't read things into what I wrote ... (4.00)
        that aren't there, aren't implied, and I would never say because I don't believe 'em. It's just your stereotype of my opinions.

        Your first line is offensive and beneath the rest of your post. Being at home with one's sexuality has nothing to do with getting laid. Sexuality is ultimately about power, the power over your own self-image and body. If you have true sexual power no external "noise" affects your self-image.

        I advocate that all women no matter what their sexual orientation own their sexual selves. And I never wish to proscribe what anyone finds titillating sexually as long as it doesn't involve abuse of power between the parties involved in the sex. The two women in the ad look like they have no problems with sexual power.

        I repeat: It has nothing to do with feminism. Feminism, as I've come to love it, has always had to do with easing the restrictions and limitations placed on women's roles -- widening the options and leveling the playing field. And for the past 35 years that I have been involved with it I have consistently rejected the notion that some feminists insist on that seek to set in stone their version of what the "proper roles for women are". So rather that opening up opportunities for women to be what they want to be and to be perceived for what they want to be, this subset of feminists have driven women away from the movement. And yes, McKinnon and Dworkin are precisely the women who have caused the rift.

        This ad has to do with attitudes about sex and sexual power. The most activist (in the "Marriage Equality" movement) of my lesbian friends saw the ad and whooped it up. She clicked through and loved it! When I told her about the brouhaha she rolled her eyes and bitched about "some women".

        My objection is to the women who purport to speak for all women, or all lesbians, or all "intelligent" women. I was expressing my opinion. I didn't claim it was anyone else's. The women who share my opinion are being drowned out as usual by the women who claim to speak for all women. That's where the "grow up" comment came from: only children think that everybody has to think the way they think.

        So thank you for doing your part to drown out women's voices who are just as fucking angry as you are but not about what you think we should be angry about. Some feminist you are!

        Maybe that is why this "straight" woman (whatever that means anymore) opts to be represented by the GLBT*Q* community! They respect differences of opinion.

        "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

        by Glinda on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:09:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am a grown-up (4.00)
          One old enough to have lived through the pre-women's movement period when subjugation, demeaning sexual comments, and other were the norm in the workplace.

          I didn't get upset about the ad.  The ad itself was offensive to me but not enough to bother posting about.  Although I did read a bit through the original thread decrying the ad, I considered it one of those "choose my battles" issues.

          However, Kos's response and many of the deamining sexist posts agreeing with him have raised my shackles.  I haven't thought about the humiliation I suffered years ago at the hands...literally, the hands....of bosses and male co-workers.  But this has brough those memories back in full.  And I hate the way they make me feel.  Just as I felt then, it makes me feel violated.

          I'm thinking you might be young enough to have avoided having to suffer through these types of events.  But I can tell you that your sanctimonious post is just as degrading as what I suffered through back then.

          •  I hear you ... (none)
            That's why I consider myself darned lucky to have been able to travel the road I did when I did it. I worked in the most sexist of environments. It still is: Wall Street. A man who is "master of the universe" and making the firm millions of dollars every day can do what he pleases. And they are brutally sexist.

            That was part of my journey. I knew my journey from "object" to "mistress of my own sexuality" had ended on the day -- I recall it very well since it was emblematic -- when the biggest pig among them, who happened to run the whole damned IT group and was my boss's boss, said to me admiringly in front of a whole group: "Gee, you're the kind of woman that makes a man feel cheap!" I had a little Mae West in me back then.

            I had accomplished my goal. And there were many other women in the 80s who did the same to the piggish men. The sexism's still there but it easy to slap the piggery down with countersexism. And the bastards respect that: after all their sexism is about minimizing all competition any way they can. You should see what those men say to each other! They're just as brutal!

            They are pigs not because they are sexually aroused or agressive. It's because they use sex for the sole purpose of asserting and abusing their power. They are no more nor less piggish than Bolton who didn't sexually harass Melody Townsel. He just harassed.

            "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

            by Glinda on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:57:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  take responsibility for your writing then (4.00)
          >>Your first line is offensive and beneath the rest of your post.

          That's the point. Thats the rhetorical direction your post was headed. I agree, its offensive.

          >>I repeat: It has nothing to do with feminism.

          And I repeat: that is demonstrably ridiculous. It has nothing to do with feminism as you define it. It has plenty to do with feminism as defined by most of the rest of the feminist spectrum -- on any side of this debate. Ignoring reams of feminist literature anywhere from MacKinnon to Lorde to Heller s insulting to those people, and those who share their views -- suggesting that theyre writing isn't feminism because it confronts these issues -- and you insist these issues have nothing to do with feminism -- is just not right. It's an extreme case of selective blindness casting itself as intellectual virtue.

          I mean, its delightful that your "lesbian friend" "whooped" the ad up. I can think of half-a-dozen "lesbian friends" who would hate it -- and probably more than a few who would also "whoop it up". Guess what? They all get to call themselves feminists, and they all get to include opinions on the portrayal of women's sexuality in the media as part of that feminism.

          Sexual portrayals of women in media -- particularly advertising, have plenty to do with feminism. And if you want to parochially hang on to the idea it doesn't (and belittle those who do take it seriously) because it doesn't fit into how you'd like to define yourself -- well, at the very least you're missing out on some very fascinating, very controversial debates within feminist writing.

          <<So thank you for doing your part to drown out women's voices who are just as fucking angry as you are but not about what you think we should be angry about. Some feminist you are!>>

          Drowning out? Am I drowning out your voice? Any woman's voice? All because I take offense that you belittle women (like my wife) who would react negatively to this ad by telling them to "grow up" and suggesting that they dont know what "feminism" is?

          I said it before, I'll say it again: the way someone (man or woman) reacts to oppression is not subject to yours, or anyones approval -- so don't try to drum them out of the feminist club by suggesting their reactions dont meet with yours.

          And no, I'm not a feminist -- I'm a guy -- I think the best I can do is be a "feminist sympathizer".

          undercaffeinated

          by odum on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:53:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Aha! (none)
            You are a guy! Heh.

            I'm sure your wife can speak for herself just as I'm speaking for myself. It is admirable that you think that you must defend women. I really mean that.

            I just don't happen to agree with you.

            One of my best friends from my big corporate days is a kick-assed agressive woman who runs an IT department at one of the most sexist firms you can imagine. She is deeply offended by ads like this. She didn't have a lot of sexual experience before she married -- she was too Catholic vs. my being "cured" of my Catholic sexual squeamishness. I have gently told her when she goes into her tirades about sex magazines that she's over the top and that I don't agree. I love her and she loves me back enough to respectfully disagree on the topic. But I do think her relationship to sex is childlike and she definitely does not feel comfortable in her sexual skin.

            Heck, 2 out of 3 of my older sisters go through the roof over stuff like this!

            dKos is an anonymous forum and, as such, allows us all the latitude to say things that we cannot say in person to each other.  I admit, after reading all the outrage that my frustrations about sexuality vis-a-vis the women's movement came out in that "grow up" line. I apologize if that made your chivalry kick in. I happen to like chivalry.

            I just think we haven't grown up much as a country sexually.

            "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

            by Glinda on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:26:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  detente (4.00)
              <<I'm sure your wife can speak for herself just as I'm speaking for myself.>>

              Oh yeah, and this has nothing to do with chivalry (yuk). My emotional resposnse was because you belittled my view. My more intellectual indignation was based on your attempt to cast this matter as being divorced from feminism, suggesting that those who would cast this in feminist terms should grow up. For that, my wife was the equivalent of your "lesbian friend" -- a convenient example.

              But gawd help me, I don't do chivalry. I'll throw myself in front of a speeding bus for my friends, but I don't check their genitalia first.

              Still, thanks for backing off the "grow up" line. It's definitely what got my gander going (and I'm sorry if I went from zero-to-sixty too quickly, there). Short of that, this is much more of a straight-up disagreement... much simpler... :-)

              undercaffeinated

              by odum on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 04:53:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  In my mind chivalry has nothing to do ... (none)
                with the recipient's genitalia (or lack thereof in some cases). And women can be chivalrous too. I like to think I'm chivalrous about other people's issues that are not my own.

                Being a word nut, my meaning for chivalry is a modification of the 5th definition in the Merriam Webster Unabridged Online (subscription only) Dictionary:

                5 : the qualifications or character of the ideal knight of the age of chivalry according to the romantic traditions (as honor, protective kindness to the weak, generosity to foes, and gallantry)
                I would posit your behaviour as being honorable and gallant (not the "protecting the weak" stuff in this case.)

                And I find that making sexual imagery part of the feminist agenda is more divisive among women than is keeping that part of it totally out of the feminist discussion. I have been a very sexually active feminist woman my whole life and do no want my behavior proscribed. It is too reminiscent of Anita Bryant and Phyllis Schlafly for my tastes.

                Truce!

                "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                by Glinda on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:23:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Nothing? (4.00)
      I've not seen the ad. Politically I'm more 3rd wave than 2nd wave feminist. I've written about how Madonna's sexual liberation was a feminist message. I'm with you about sexual freedom and breaking constricting social roles. (Although I would suggest that the sexualized bimbo is another constraining social role perpetuated in our popular media.)

      But what I find so offensive here is the sanctimonious diary up at the top of the page that reads, in effect:

      "I, as the man, have weighed the concerns of feminists on this matter, and I, as a man, have decided that feminists who take offense at this ad are being sanctimonious."

      In other words, the man -- and here, he's The Man -- is attempting to define what are and are not appropriate feminist issues. As if he had any special insight into the matter.

      The blanket and prejudicial disregard he expresses here for women, for feminists, for academic feminists is so typically chauvenistic, it's simply a laugh that he attempts to claim that he's sensitive to feminist causes.

      Here's a clue, guys: The first step to supporting feminism is shutting up and letting the women speak ... and hearing, really hearing, what we have to say. Every time you overrule -- with prejudice and ad hominem attacks -- what we say about our concerns, you are reinforcing the very thing you claim to oppose.

      That, Glinda, is why this entire discussion has everything to do with feminism. At least so it seems to me.

      •  I can't believe I'm still willing to discuss ... (none)
        this "dead horse". But <sigh> here goes.

        Unless you paid for a subscription and are unwilling to turn ads back on, the ad is right there on the front page (scroll down: it's the 2nd picture ad from the bottom on the left). We are unlikely to get rid of it since most of the early, "pre-Kos weighing-in" diaries written by the outraged not only referenced the damned ad but linked to the TBS page one clicks thru to if you click the ad. So the ad ended up being the top rated ad that has ever been run on dKos from that ad package. Ergo, we're gonna see a lot more of them! I'm not kidding here.

        It was the The Passion of the Christ or, for that matter, Last Temptation of Christ of the blog ad world. Th