Skip to main content

Background:  The "pie fight" ad has been getting attention lately from those who thinks it objectifies women; others say it's just an ad, get over it, kos posts a front-page where he made an ill-thought comment about "sanctimonious women's studies" (he modified his statment later in an update); that, i turn, offended more people than probably the ad itself, causing at least one of our most respected posters to consider leaving.  All caught up?  OK.  Let's talk.

To begin with, let me say from the start I didn't really object to the ad being on the site.  Is it cheesy and corny?  Yep.  But hey, I found that classified ad linking to hateful conservative crap WAY more offensive.  So I could agree with both sides of the issue, really.  What I can't agree with  is how the ad has apparently created a schism in the community and has distracted us.

To the "It's just an ad!" camp
It is just an ad.  I'm not offended by a pic of a busty gal (I am one, no big deal there) and I'm not offended by the shocking fact that --gasp!--men fantasize about women.  In all sorts of compromising positions.  And I'm cogizant of the fact that Kos needs to get the bills paid.  And I realize how people may think us girls overreact when we call people out for using the word "pussy" or making an off-hand sexist comment.  

But what the "just an ad camp" does not, I think, fully appreciate is not what the ad shows, but what it represents.  If you haven't been stared at like you're a piece of meat in a deli it's hard to understand. But there is this feeling of minimization when you get oogled at and treated purely like a sex object.  This ad has a twinge of that.  

And let me tell you why I think it's caused an uproar from those who think it's offensive.  Because we women are living in dangerous times.  The Bush admnistration and the radical religious right has declared an all out assault on our personal rights and identity.  The minimization has already begun; a switch in a Justice or two and whither Roe v. Wade?  Women's health care is being virtually ignored.  And our control over our bodies--in terms of abortion, yes, but in other ways as well--is under attack.  So understand that in the current climate, the last thing we need is an ad reinforcing the view that our sole purpose is to serve and please our masters, men.

That being said, it's just an ad.

To the "It's so offensive!" camp

It's not a treatise on male/female relations.  It's not a bill in the Senate.  It's just an ad.  If we were to object vociferously to every detail in life which represents women as just sex objects, we wouldn't have time to accomplish anything on this site!  And as such, we must give it the proper weight it deserves.  Which, in my opinion, is very little.  

Let's be reality-based.  Sex sells.  Look at the Grist ad with the revealed thigh.  Look at the Lipstick on the Pig ad with those huge, luscious red lips (ok, ok, wrong example!)  And sex is a part of the "state of nation", which this site is meant to address.  This site should not be sterilized to get rid of every sexual theme or undertone.  And that's what I think Kos was trying to say in his post.  Sex is part of life.  Women are viewed as sex objects, so are men.  But the progressive and moral thing to do is to not view women just in sexual terms.  And when we object to an ad because it depicts a male fantasy, are we not doing just that?  Are we not denying the fact that women are sexy beings?  And, most importantly, are we not distracting ourselves from the key issues undermining women's rights?

This is a grown-up site.  Like the "cuss-word" debates, the debate about what level of sexuality is appropriate in an ad will always exist.  But, my friends, we are way off the mark on this one.

And by we, I mean we as a community, Kos and members included.

Group-think and Moving On
If I find the ad offensive, I'm not going to get upset that others do not.  If I find the ad benign (or arousing!) I won't flame those who don't.

And I will NEVER EVER troll rate those who disagree with my opinion.  Group-think is for freeperville.  Giving out troll ratings like their free pixie sticks at the county fair is NOT acceptable, and I'm disappointed that so many last night found it easier to defend their position by handing out a "0" than by engaging in a substantive debate.  We are not a single Kossack, with a single set of moral values and worldview.  We are a cast of thousands, each with their own life experiences, and to think that the entire site can hold one view over another is impractical and dangerous.

That being said, Kos's tone was, I believe, inappropriate.  And personally, I think he has employed the "you don't like it, screw you" attitude one too many times on this site.  Kos, this IS your site, and god bless you for it, but it's such a great site because of you AND because of us.  You'll get turnover, I'm sure.  As old members get offended or tired and leave, you'll have fresh faces registering every day. You should not temper your words or let the fact you're in charge shade your views, but I think you do have to try to realize that even the host at a party needs to act a certain way.  And that involves creating a welcoming environment. You won't be able to please all 50,000 users at once.  And you can't possibly accomodate everyone's greivance or request.  But you CAN do is treat the people who dedicate hours to your site with a bit more respect, and respond to them in a constructive, not antagonistic, manner.  I don't give a shit how you respond to people outsie this site, how politically or apolitically you want to deal with outside criticism---but when that criticism comes from your own house, from your quasi-internet family--you have a duty to lead us away from conflict, not to contribute to it.  (phew!  ok, got that out of the way.  kos....please don't ban meeeeee)

So, to conclude.  It's just a pie fight ad.  Just like it was "Fuck Ohio".  Just like it was "memo v. minutes."  Just like it was a host of other issues which have caused a degree of divisiveness here.  

And Kos's response was, I think, just an ill-conceived attempt to put the issue to rest and to point out that we can't let ourselves be distracted.

Because, fellow Kossacks, we have a lot of work to do.  And if we are to do it--if we are to help put this country on the right track--we cannot stop along the way and analyze banner ads to death.  We can't let our best members behind in the wake of arguments such as these.  Our success as an online community, as a liberal community as a whole, hinges on our unity and our ability to put aside differences in opinion and work together towards a common goal.

So, everyone, say it with me.  FUCK THE PIE AD.

Fuck distractions.  Fuck the infighting.  Fuck the navelgazing.  I'm ready to address the real issues...are you?

Originally posted to Georgia Logothetis on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 04:54 AM 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

  •  Perhaps it is time (4.00)
    for some of us to realize that no matter how progressive, how liberal, how lefty, how cool, or how smart any given person is, that person will have demons, will have issues upon which they are an asshole, will have sexist, racist, prejudiced, foolish, otherwise UNprogressive opinions.

    Get used to it. Welcome to the real world.

    Perhaps it is also time for some of us to realize that, while indeed none of us are perfect, that the concerns raised by various sectors of the community DO NEED TO BE RESPECTED, and even (gasp) addressed with serious attention, some self-criticism, and a healthy dose of humility and humble pie.

    There.

    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

    by RedDan on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 04:58:30 AM PDT

    •  Humble pie! (4.00)
      Now there's a pie that many of us around here could use a lot more of.
    •  In loving memory of Marshal de Grouchy (4.00)
      At the battle of Waterloo, June 18, 1815, de Grouchy was in charge of Napoleon's reserves. His order was to pursue the Prussians.
      On the morning of battle, as the guns started blasting away in the distance, his officers were in dismay. They wanted to march against the sound of battle.
      de Grouchy, bless his soul, would have no such thing. His order was to pursue the Prussians, and that he would.

      Blücher had turned his army during the night, and was headed for the camp of battle decided upon in advance, by Wellington.
      de Grouchy, stuck with his orders, had been lured away from the true battle, and was pursuing a few detachments of Prussians.

      His officers considered deposing him as commander, yet in the end did not.

      During the entire day of battle, Napoleon was convinced that de Grouchy was marching towards the guns, and that he would receive reinforcements any moment.
      When soldiers began appearing at the edge of a forest, on Napoleon's right, a cheer went up among the French. "de Grouchy is here!" But it was Blücher's forces, and the battle was lost to the French, the aristocrats of Europe would reestablish their hold on the continent for another century.

      Maybe people on this site should pick their battles better?

      "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

      by SteinL on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:59:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In loving memory of Marshal de Grouchy (none)
      At the battle of Waterloo, June 18, 1815, de Grouchy was in charge of Napoleon's reserves. His order was to pursue the Prussians.
      On the morning of battle, as the guns started blasting away in the distance, his officers were in dismay. They wanted to march against the sound of battle.
      de Grouchy, bless his soul, would have no such thing. His order was to pursue the Prussians, and that he would.

      Blücher had turned his army during the night, and was headed for the camp of battle decided upon in advance, by Wellington.
      de Grouchy, stuck with his orders, had been lured away from the true battle, and was pursuing a few detachments of Prussians.

      His officers considered deposing him as commander, yet in the end did not.

      During the entire day of battle, Napoleon was convinced that de Grouchy was marching towards the guns, and that he would receive reinforcements any moment.
      When soldiers began appearing at the edge of a forest, on Napoleon's right, a cheer went up among the French. "de Grouchy is here!" But it was Blücher's forces, and the battle was lost to the French, the aristocrats of Europe would reestablish their hold on the continent for another century.

      Maybe people on this site should pick their battles better?

      "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

      by SteinL on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:11:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Totally agree. Let me add ... (4.00)
      ...a corollary (which I noticed in your overlooked Diary this morning):

      I wager there is at least one issue on which each and every one of the 53,000+ folks signed up at Daily Kos will have fierce, no-prisoners-allowed views about. An issue which they think is bedrock principle and deserves ample and amplified discussion. Could be abortion, could be gun rights, could be SUV drivers.  

      Opposed will be others folks who think the particular "bedrock principle" is sillyass nonsense that doesn't deserve half a Diary of discussion so why don't we just move on.

      But, of course, if I tell one of those posters to get over their "pet" issue, they'll be incensed and properly demand to know why I don't respect them.

      It's a conundrum, and I don't see any way around it unless we're willing to say that only SOME things matter. The things I care about. On everything else, get over it, move on, fuck off.

      **

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

      Visit The Next Hurrah

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:52:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks, Georgia10... (4.00)
    ...for saying something about piegate that I can finally be down with.

    Kids, kids, kids....can't we all just get along? Now, you...go and hug your sister. And, you...stop shooting rubber bands at his head.

  •  oh, I don't know (4.00)
    I kind of think that Kos is cute when he gets mad.
  •  Great Diary Georgia10 (4.00)
    from a member of the "It's just an ad" camp.  I have a little trick when a man talks to your breasts, just look at his crotch. It is amazing how it works. I did that with my ex-boss and he learned to look at my eyes (on my face) when we talked.
    •  Heh, heh... (4.00)
      That reminds me of the time I called a doctor by his first name because that's how he addressed me.

      I'm not terribly formal, but I hate when people assume familiarity they don't have. It's right up there with nick-naming people, esp. when Shrub and his ilk do it--e.g. if my name is "Dorothy" DO NOT friggin call me "Dottie."

      Anyway, I thought he was rude. By the shocked look on his face, I got his attention.

      "Sir, we've already lost the dock." A Zion Lieutenant to Commander Lock, The Matrix Revolutions

      by AuntiePeachy on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:12:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  LOL (4.00)
        Dorothy-Dottie: I get the opposite.

        My given, birth-certificate name is Frank. It is not Francis. It is not Franklin. It is Frank. Frank is not my nickname. It is my given name. My nickname...is Frankie :-)

        And, no, my name ain't Bruce either. That's Springsteen's name :-)

        "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

        by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:38:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  yes! (none)
        I hate that familiarity that doctors assume.  If you want me to call you Dr. Smith, then, damnit, call me Mrs. Getmeoutofdixie!

        My last doctor had a large geriatric population (I got out of there in a hurry) but I was constantly aggravated to hear the 22 year old receptionist call out "Mildred?"  or  "Anna?" like they were in kindergarten.

        It's a way to put you in your place.

  •  worse than being viewed as a sex object (4.00)
    is being viewed as a sexless object.

    I say this as an older women knowing full well that I'm going to get slammed.

    SOCIAL SECURITY: Invented by Democrats yesterday, Protected by Democrats today

    by mollyd on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:11:10 AM PDT

    •  wow! the lengths people go to get slambanged;) (none)
    •  That's the best thing (4.00)
      about being my age, I find. Not having to worry about that crap anymore.  

      In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

      by a gilas girl on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:31:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, it's liberating (4.00)
        to be 40 and not have to worry about the hair or the lipstick or the high heels.  To use the breasts to feed the baby, not men's ardor.  To never again think about the gazer.  
        •  Think Again-- (none)
          To begin with, there's a worldwide history of younger men being attracted to older women. Of course, younger men are attracted to most everything that a) moves or b) doesn't, so that's not a surprise.

          If you choose to be free from marketing yourself, that's wonderful. But don't think there isn't interest on the other side, including plenty of head-turning. Remember The Graduate.

          I married a 40 year old divorcee, the smartest move I've made in 3 lifetimes for any number of reasons. Oh, and women even smell good into their mid 60's. (And counting)

          There's a reason there are 6,000,000,000 of us.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:02:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And don't I love those men! (none)
            Well, as a matter of fact, yes I do! I'm married to one of them. He's 7 years younger than I am and he's the wisest, most wonderful man in the world ... not to mention the world's best father, IMHO!

            "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 08:39:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My husband's 10 years younger (4.00)
              than I am, and I'm 50 this year, been married to him for 14 years and can't imagine being happier. Of course, he came from a family in which his mother always worked, so he was just as independent as I was, and talk about a great father to my two girls (from my 1st marriage)and a wonderful granddad too. I've always advised my girlfriends to not count out younger men.
              •  It was 13 years ago yesterday ... (none)
                that we married, as a matter of fact! He's my first husband (and, with a bit of luck, my only husband). I married late since it took me a long time to realize that the attitudes of the men that I met who were "appropriately older" than I was weren't making me want to spend more than a couple of months with any of them.

                (Now fellas, I'm not painting all you older guys with a broad brush. Just the ones I encountered in the NYC financial and software industries, okay!)

                And for some women, once they get over their need for men who are 1) older and 2) more successful than they are they can often indeed find bliss.

                "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 10:43:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, are you serious? (4.00)
          How depressing.
          •  Yes (none)
            I used to have men after me like stray cats, but I prefer being married with a toddler on my hip.  I finally bobbed my hair, quit routinely putting on makeup, no longer wonder if my butt looks too big, will never ever dress up like teenager or color my greys, and so on.  Appearance-wise, I go for comfortable, clean and kempt.

            I do still use the boobs to feed the kid (am doing so as I type) and that may color my opinion here, because intensive mothering is hell on the libido.

            But I am not saying that I have or plan on a juiceless, sexless life.  I am simply ready for it on my terms; being married is great that way!  I am so past being deli meat.  So past pouring energy into luring.  So past being defined by and treated as a collection of secondary sexual characteristics.

          •  Quite the contrary... (none)
            its the most enjoyable feeling, too bad I had to wait (and wade through) 20 years of crap to arrive at it.

            In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

            by a gilas girl on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:12:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  It's the same way for us dudes. (4.00)
        I can't tell you how happy it makes me that I'm old enough not to be led about by my cock or making dumb, dumb decisions to be with dumb, dysfunctional people purely because of sex or the possibility thereof. The time I've wasted...

        And just because I'm the only person who has yet to comment on the pie fight ad, I'd just like to say that I don't get the controversy at all. The ad is jejune, but not any more offensive than 90% of what you see on TV commercials. Just ignore it. The folks who run the site have to pay the bills, so they put up a bunch of ads, all of which you can ignore. Just ignore them. They're ads: by paying any attention to them at all you've lost and the capitalists have won. Is a fake fight with fake pies between fake lesbians with fake breasts offensive? Sort of: not as offensive as a luxury car or a McGristle, but somewhat more offensive than that weird guy with the vortex vacuum. But not nearly as offensive as the refusal of modern media to take risks by creating original content rather than recycling old TV shows that were god-awful in the first place.

        One of the tedious things about a site full of activists, and I include myself in this, is that people want to change all of the world, every part of it, now. And activisim is more effective when you pick your battles. Ohio vote/coin scandal? Good pick. Stem cells? Awesome pick: an easy winner. Right-wing war against women's reproductive health (which is also a war against guys)? Also good. Fake pie fight ad? Possibly not the best use of your time and attention. Even if your main point is solid, it's just too trivial an issue to get so worked up about. You're not going to make advertisers stop using adolescent-male views on sex to sell shitty product.

        •  Okay. (4.00)
          I haven't spoken on this issue either.
          Here's why I am offended.  I'm a sixty year old woman and I have seen this movie before.  I grew up in a time when  women, blacks and minorities were seen as lesser and expected to think the same of themselves, as many did.  It was considered perfectly permissible to refer to blacks as niggers and ridicule them for their "negroid features." My grandfather had sharecroppers on his farm and they lived in tarpaper shacks and he put in a bathroom on his porch, so that when they came to get paid for working out in the fields in the hot sun (including little children), they wouldn't be able to use the bathroom in the house.

          Women were not allowed to apply for men's jobs. There were separate ads in the newspaper entitled, "Men's Jobs' and "Women's jobs".  Women's jobs consisted of secretary, typist, receptionist, nurse and teacher.
          Women had little ability to make a living on their own and had to put up with loveless and even abusive marriages. The police would not protect you because it was considered a family matter (and dangerous for the police to get involved in --not to mention --no one thought it was serious -- a man had a right to keep his wife in line).

          Women, blacks, Jews and all minorities were expected to put up with degrading comments and images about their physical features, their ugliness (blacks were constantly derided about the ugliness of their big lips and their hair, Jews about their noses,  their supposed avarice and their aggessive personalities).  Women, of course, were expected to put up with constant sexual harrassment, abuse, evaluative commentary about their bodies, their hair, their beauty or the lack of it and told when they objected "Can't you take a joke?"

          "Can't you take a joke" is the biggest and oldest dodge of the abuser.   I expect to find that today (as none of this has completely gone away --and seems to be making a big comeback--at least when it comes to women) --but there are places I did not expect to find it and this site is one of them.   Yes, there are many ads out there in the culture that are offensive to women.  But context matters. This is a site which promotes itself as being liberal and progressive.  It is painful and shocking -- not so much to see the ad, as Kos' response to criticism of it.  It is truly appalling to me to see someone I respected recapitulate the language of historical male tyranny.  This is especially true when women are being attacked all over the world --their bodies, their rights, even their lives in many cases are controlled and dominated by men who think they have a right to do so.

          Here on this site we constantly talk about how the Republicans control thought through controlling language.  This insight in itself came from many years of the self-examination  in our culture of thoughtful people who came to understand the power of language and images to influence how we think and act.   There is no difference between what the Republicans do to language and what Men's language does to women.

          I am not in women's studies, nor have I ever taken a class in it, although I have many friends who are involved in it. However, I teach art and photography at a university where we evaluate the power of images all the time.  Images have power --even more than words.  They too control and define how we think and what we think.

          I am truly appalled and I believe that Kos needs to evaluate his attitudes carefully -- because he and many others -- do not understand how all of these things are connected.  It isn't okay to be a progressive on one subject and a fascist on another.

          •  fascist? (4.00)
            I was grudgingly, but respectfully, taking in your points until I got to the end.  You imply that Kos is fascist for running the ad. The ad is stupid and it might be sexist, but Kos isn't fascist for running it no matter how offended you might be.

            And while we're on the subject... I'll start being offended about the ads on Kos right after I stop being offended about: Iraq, the Patriot Act, the "Clean Air Initiative", the "Save Our Forests" act, right-wing bible thumping judges, and the real indignities suffered by women around the world. But you can certainly be offended by whatever you like.

            •  Time to chime in. (4.00)
              I think, rightly or wrongly she was terming Kos a fascist more for his response to the criticism, rather than for merely running the ad.

              This is huge grey area here folks.

              For me I can totally see where both sides are coming from, which is a cross most liberals must carry (always looking at both viewpoints).

              In one respect, I can see Kos running that ad as a sort of a "Sell Out". A progressive site running an ad that objectifies women is kind of...backwards?
              But also, liberals have gone off the deep end at times trying to do something we all don't like, which is tolegislate morality, which is a specialty of the right-wing looneys.
              Remember Tipper Gore in the 80's with the PMRC? It's not just Lieberman who dabbles in that shit.

              IMHO, One of the greatest liberal tenets is the dictum: You cannot legislate morality!!

              The best way to tackle moral issues is to promote ideals that you consider moral and eschew those you consider vile.
              So Kos is right when he says you are better off ignoring an ad like that, because Tipper Gore sold more Judas Priest albums in the 80's than Rob Halford ever could have on his own.
              That's called reality and it's why Abotions have gone up under George "culture of shit" Bush. Safe, Legal and Rare dipshit. What's so hard to understand about that.

              That said, this is a progressive site. And like it or not, the ads you run do have a reflectve quality.
              It's quite a conundrum because in the internet age,AD revenue is one of the few places left artists have for profiting from  intellectual property. The Car commercial has replaced the radio as a way for bands to break through and make a few bucks. It's like that all over. In a global economy it will only grow worse.
              So, I can't say what I'd do in Kos's shoes either. It's a hard knock life.

              So what's say we all just move on, individually do what we can to color in those grey areas and tackle all those problematic black and white ones that seem to be lying around in disarray?
          •  Thank you, derridog. (4.00)
            You expressed my feelings so much better than I could.  I am 57 and grew up in those days of prejudice and "women's jobs" too.  

            While I was somewhat taken aback when I first saw the ad, but I didn't get really upset until I saw the responses to the "pie fight" diary.  Now that I've read what kos has to say about it, I'm really disappointed. I also think my feelings about the ad have been influenced by other diaries and comments I've seen here recently that minimize the importance of women's issues.  

            Daily Kos has been my home page for a long time now.  But, I'm going to follow kos' suggestion and switch to another site for now and give another deserving blogger some business.  This is a great place, and the one reason why I won't stop reading kos is the wonderful writing by women that I see here.  But I won't be here so often from now on.

            Ann

          •  Thank you (4.00)
            Thank you, derridog, you have expressed how I have been feeling on this issue. I did not tune into the original posts about the ad. I only started with kos' blog in which he marginalized, stereotyped and insulted women who care about women's issues.

            I went to bed last night after spending far too long reading those comments, and had a really hard time sleeping. Here's what I have come to realize - I expect to encounter sexist crap pretty much everywhere in the world, but when I find a site that bills itself as "progressive" I expect something different. I expect respect for women. I expect a real understanding of institutional sexism, racism, and homophobia. I expect men to treat women like the majority of the population that we are (yes, men, we outnumber you) rather than a special interest group to be denigrated and marginalized. And so, after this latest incident on top of others (NARAL bashing included - I will be renewing my NARAL membership today) I no longer feel safe or welcome here, and I'm very sad about it. I won't be leaving altogether, but I won't be hanging around much anymore (at least I'll sleep better).

            Now, off to find some feminist-friendly blogs...

        •  well for one thing (4.00)
          this site is NOT television
          It's a site for Dems, who are supposed to be enlightened.

          Would Kos accept an ad for a TV show that broadcast old "Amos and Andy" shows?

          •  Hmm.... (none)
            It's a site for Dems, who are supposed to be enlightened.

            Well, yes. But how? And about what? And in what degree?

            Enlightenment has holes, and degrees, and areas of bias.

            I could say that certain people should be 'enlightened' to the fact that most hetero men like boobies, and if you flash tittie at us you're gonna lead us by our penis to whatever you're trying to sell like a horse to water. And that's never, ever gonna change. Hey, 'reality-based community', right?

            Now, that's an overstatement of the case, done to make a point. Still, it's an overstatment, not a falsehood.  Think about it--what do boobs have to do with beer? Nothing. So why do beer ads flash boobs? Because it works.

            I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it's not right. I'm saying it's what is.

             

            "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

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

            [ Parent ]

            •  CofB, you aren't getting it (4.00)
              "it" isn't about the ad:  "it" is about Kos (and some others') RESPONSE to the ad

              Many of us have tried to explain this to you.  

              •  Do you think (none)
                Kos's response came out of a vacuum?

                I saw the original stuff on the original thread. As someone else said, I can only imagine what some of Kos's mail must've looked like.

                For the record, I though Kos's response--especially the original one, before he amended it--was very unnecessarily harsh. I didn't agree with his tone at all.

                However, let's not pretend it's 'not about the ad'. Because his post, whether or not you agree with it, was about people who were complaining about the ad. No complaints about the ad, no Kos going off the deep end. And I do think he went off the deep end. But it did start with the ad, and how it was recieved.

                "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

                by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:18:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  you're still turning heads.... (none)
        I've had a cyber crush on A Gilas Girl for like a year - all based on terrific posts and thoughtful comments.

        Wow - I'm crushing on a woman solely based on her brain and words - I must be "growing"! I had hoped that wouldn' happen!! :)  

        •  Regression (none)
          is always a possibility, never fear!

          ;)

          Thanks for the nice compliment, I knew there was something about this faceless anonymous discussion that worked for me.

          In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

          by a gilas girl on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:16:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  that made me think (4.00)
      this did too;

       But there is this feeling of minimization when you get oogled at and treated purely like a sex object.  This ad has a twinge of that.  

      i dont feel that at all....i feel welled up with power....ive managed to transform what society thinks i should feel when i am oogled (and i am oogled alot in my world) im treated like a sex object because i AM a sex object....they pay a lot for that priveledge....and money is definitely a form of power.

      i say this not as a playboy bunny type either...im an old fat suburban housewife who is a very successful sex object, sex worker, pornographer, etc....i do workshops all over the country on body image and how to transform whats inside you regardless of whats on the outside of you....that workshop is second in popularity only to The Art of the Handjob.

      this is all about surplus powerlessness....and how people react to their feelings of surplus powerlessness....activists should read the book Surplus Powerlessness by Michael Lerner...it will transform the way you think and live.

      and then read Who Moved My Cheese....when I read that book and the words;"What would you do if you werent afraid?" i said to myself...id become a sex object.

      and i did.

      I wish I had a penis on the back of my head.

      by anna in philly on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:58:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree to a certain extent (none)
        I agree there is a tremendous amount of power there to be used. But as a man, allow me to comment that the moment I realize that any woman I know is trying to manipulate me by using the fact that she's a woman, I walk away.

        I like to think I treat women as equals. I marched in the last big march in DC for womens rights. It wasn't my first womens rights march. I constantly send in stuff to my RW senators supporting womens rights.

        Men don't like to be manipulated any more than women do. So just know that if you over do it with the power thing, some of us will just leave.

        •  I had a boss put her hand on my knee (none)
          and I think that was what finally broke our working relationship - it was rocky before that, but that just pushed me over the edge. Progressive non-profit too.

          But then, I look back at all the manipulative things I've done, especially around sex and I try not to get too exercised about it. sigh - it would have been so nice to have figured out some of this when I was younger.

    •  You won't get slammed by (none)
      me. I agree with you - being viewed as sexless is the worst. Obviously, I'm a member of "it's-just-an-ad-get-a-life" camp. I live on the east coast and missed last night's pie fight. I'm kinda glad I did; I would have been too upset to sleep.
    •  I hear you there! (none)
      But there is an upside. Now happily I can leer at gorgeous young men and they don't even notice. 10 years ago I was constantly getting caught at it.

      "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 08:29:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  yes.... (4.00)
      I was thinking something along those lines when Georgia said But there is this feeling of minimization when you get oogled at and treated purely like a sex object.

      I think people who get upset simply for being oogled at have too good a life.  There is an endless number of worse things to live through.

      •  i appreciate your point. (4.00)
        I do.  When you compare it to the blight of famine, the human rights attrocities happening across the globe, etc., being judged on your looks seems to be small potatoes, and in all likelihood is.  

        that said, the feeling that comes over you when you realize that nothing you say or do will even be noticed by another person because of how you look is crushing, and i wouldn't wish it on anyone - male or female.  

        I'm not saying that either side of the pie fight is right or wrong; i think georgia10 made some great points, as usual.  

        your post struck a nerve in me because while famine and the aids epidemic are sort of big, abstract issues that are causing unimagineable suffering on a large scale, the idea that i'm nothing more than a double d to some people (male and female) causes me pain on an immediate, individual scale.  I may not be able to do a lot to stop the big-scale suffering, but at the very least, I can try to kind to those around me.  If I can't pull that off, i'm not really sure what the point of being here is.

        "How can I turn away? Human as to human...The future is no place To place your better days." -DMB

        by lapolitichick on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:10:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  like an invisibility cloak (none)
      It can be good, it can be bad.  It's not necessarily just older women.  It's overweight and unattractive women.  All my life I've felt how some people see me but some men see through me.

      Mostly I'm used to it.  Mostly I'm "over" it.  But it still sucks sometimes.

      "This is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause." - Padme Amidala

      by marjo on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:19:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks Georgia10 (none)
     This needed to be said.

    "Do Iraqi children scream when the bombs fall if no one is in the White House to hear them?" Bernard Chazelle

    by dmac on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:12:02 AM PDT

  •  Fuck the pie ad (none)
    I come here to read Arthur Gilroy!
  •  well, maybe I can say only for myself (none)
    that I might have gone off just a little.  I can do that, you know.  I find some comments that I take issue with.  I ignore most of them and go on.  I have to agree with you that we have to get to the real issues so that we can win for a change.  I can deal with the pie fight thing and go on.  Like I said yesterday...this is cyber talk..not my real life.  I can and will do as I see fit but coming here to Kos was not for female/male issues to a degree like the pie fight...but if we can strech it a bit, is that not what the right wing does???  

    I have been around for way toooooo long to take someone commnets as Gods law.  Opinions are like butt holes....everyone has one.  I just try to understand others by coming here and how they post is certinaly how I think they feel...for I  certinaly post how I feel about issues.

    There are times I have a bad day and I wear my feelings on my shoulder waiting to get knocked off.  Such is life.  I try hard to be a woman of good standing for my community, family and mostly for someone who I can life with...in other words be true to thine self.  I have been in the military and man can I spit the cuss words just as any sailor could..  I am just prudent as to where I say those things.  I know that my x-husband was surley shocked when I said fuck the first and only time with him.  One could see the blood drain from his face.  I slipped up and did the unforgivable to his morals....oh who the hell really cares....I try to be a good citizen and a good member here to give to the congreation my very best of thoughts.  I sometimes dont and sometimes I do.  such is life.  

    If I feel hurt by this group, and I want to leave, I will not come on and say so.  That is just attention getting in my opinion.  When and if I leave, I will just drop off the face of the earth as far as you all are concerned...this is just how I feel about it.

    So yes, there were some of us women who felt that we had ourselves impuned by some and then others could give a damn.  I can live with that...I just do not want the religious right to tell me I am subhuman or subservent to any man on this earth...for I know differently.  I do not want my grandaughters to ever feel like that either.  I raised my daughers to not feel like that either...and I can tell you that they both are outstanding women, well one died, but they both are so telling of who they are.  My son was taught to respect women not to take them as a servent for him.  He is to respect them and I expect his mate to feel that he is to be respected too.  

    We could go on and on and on about this and I am good at doing just that to get my point across.  There are somethings we can change and some that we can not..The real issue is to know that wisdom to know the difference.

    Have a great day to each of you.  I have to get ready for work and try to save some lives today....charge, onward and forward...Lets get our butts in gear to fight the long hard fight to win back congress and get this administration out of town, forever, never to be heard from again.  That is why I am here yesterday, today and tomorrow.  Thanks for hearing me out.  I consider each of you good cyber friends.  I respect your views as I hope you do mime.

  •  My message of peace (4.00)
    I am not in the "It's just an ad" camp or the "It's so offensive" camp.

    I am in the "It's not very good porn" camp.

    I mean come on, porn is the Internet's middle name. This is amateur stuff. So, if we are going to have porn on dKos, let us demand high-quality, really hot porn.

    Thank you, I hope I  have been able to bridge the gap between the two camps with my message of understanding and reconciliation.

    And with that: GOODBYE CRUEL PIE!!!!!

    Somewhere around 2001, Mr. Spock grew a beard.

    by Olds88 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:57:07 AM PDT

    •  i want to put up an ad (none)
      for my porn

      but its not objectifying women at all kind of porn

      its just old  fat ladies being worshipped by hot young guys and teasing them till they go crazy

      do you think men will complain they are being objectified or used for the tittilation of women?

      I wish I had a penis on the back of my head.

      by anna in philly on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:10:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some will. (none)
        You let us know if that worries you any.
      •  I'm pretty sure (none)
        someone has beat you to it.

        This business will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we'll be lucky to live through it.

        by Omar on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:16:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And in the comments (4.00)
        we can all come up with clever, well, not really so clever slang names for men's genitalia, and dare other people to troll rate us.  That, of course, is what is going on at Kos's diary about the pie fight:  "hot titties" as a subject line.  I think there are some men out there who are at heart little boys who like to say dirty words to make their mommies mad.
        •  As a writer of erotica, (none)
          please, if you've got any, send 'em on down! Dick gets old, cock is a little too harsh, and 'love pump' is just silly.

          The female genetalia is no better. One finds oneself hammering 'pussy' into the ground, especially if you (like I do) find the c-word ugly and nasty-sounding. Then you find yourself getting into all that purple prose 'blooming flower of womanhood' crap, which is not my thing!

          My point? Just a different perspective. If you posted your list of penis-slang, I'd be sitting there going "Ooh, that's a good one!" and "Nah, can't use that one" and "Oh, no, not 'love pump'!" Not the reaction you'd expect, I'll bet. :-)

          The thing is, words mean different things to different people. We all have to guard against that, and I include myself in that. Maybe especially myself. When you write erotica, 'pussy' is just a word. And an overused one at that. And 'hot titties' isn't offensive, it's purple prose. God knows I'm guilty of not seeing things from another perspective sometimes, and I know it. But we all have different lenses from which we view these things.

          And, lest you dismiss this 'cause I'm male, my best friend is a female fellow-erotic-writer. And if I kept logs of our IM chats, I'd be able to show you times when we just went around on this stuff. In fact, she once used 'bodacious ta-ta's.' Hey, it fit with the character--a female character talking about herself--so she went with it :-).

           

          "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

          by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:28:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  <ahem> (none)
        do you have a link available?

        Not that I'd be interested, or anything.  ;-)

        "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 12:13:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Frankly (4.00)
    I never saw the ad...nor will since I do not want to perpetuate this genre.

    Hpwever, what I have read so far is not about the ad it is about the dissmisive attittude towards women that has been repeated here.

  •  All I know is that... (4.00)
    ... those girls are fucking HOT! But, I also really like pie and I hate to see it wasted like that.

    To those of you who object to the objectification of women, let me assure you that we're not objectifying all women and certainly not you. Leave the girls who don't mind being objectified alone. After all, it's a free country and those girls are fucking HOT! I can't stress that enough.

    hink

    •  Making of pie (none)
      Not all the pies were edible. If you watch the "Making of" video, they had stunt pies, pie in the face pies, eating pies, etc. Pie comedy is gol'dern sofistimikated.
    •  I concur... (none)
      on the hotness. And when someone points out "they're fake," I usually say, "And your point would be?"

      It's all fantasy, and I think most of us are capable of distinguishing between sexual fantasy and real-life interpersonal relations, sexual and non-sexual alike. Even when we're having sex with our significant others who don't really look anything like our fantasy objects.

      Anyone, regardless of gender or orientation, who has a sex drive has fantasies and objectifies people. I feel sorry for anyone who has repressed that part of his- or herself so much that they've become humorless automatons.

      ...Freedom is on the march. Straight to the gas chamber. this is infidelica...

      by snookybeh on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:53:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Philosophical Question (4.00)
    Why is it sanctimonious for members of the liberal community to be offended by a sexist ad when it is not sanctimonious of them to be outraged over an ad used by the right wing that featured a gay male newly-wed couple?

    Never mind the permission to use business, just focus on the subject matter.

    Then, which apology from either the liberal or right wing posters of these ads seems more complete?

    This avenue of comparison is making me uncomfortable with the moral highground we seem to be defending.

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:09:17 AM PDT

    •  objectification (none)
      Objectification of Hatred

      Objectification of Lust

      I think its far easier to get a concensus that the AARP ad is far and away the most disgusting ad. It's blatant hatred and the design dehumanizes the gay men.

      The Pie Ad is in a grey area.  For one its not a political ad, its pop culture.  There was no easy universal condemnation.  For one, male biology. If I said that every time an attractive woman is seen by a male he in no way objectified her, I'd be a liar. Secondly (it appeared to me) to became a "moral value" debate.  Censorship, morality, modesty, sexuality, male-female relations: its a tough debate and its one that I think dKOS should have more of. Should democrats be advocates of a certain kind of morality (ala Dobson)? Should democrats embrace the PC police label as Rush Limbaugh says we do?  How can the anti-ad camp effectively convey their message of "respect"? (in my little part of the world respect is earned not given)

      Blogads needs to throw up a beefcake ad, it would be interesting to see if the pro and con groups have the same composition.

    •  Here's why. (4.00)
      Women are taken for granted by the Democratic party and apparently also by major bloggers.  Women's issues are the ones that people say something like this about:

      "Why are you making such a big deal about that?  We have more important issues to deal with.  You need to wait until we get back in power and then we'll deal with...abortion, day care, protection of children, you know all those single issues."

      So we're supposed to support "Democratic" candidates who vote with the Republicans like Ben Nelson.  I don't get it.  If they vote with the Republicans, what good are they to us?  But we should worry our pretty little heads about that, just do what we're told and everything will work out just fine.

  •  You had me till here... (4.00)
    ""So, everyone, say it with me.  FUCK THE PIE AD.

    Fuck distractions.  Fuck the infighting.  Fuck the navelgazing.  I'm ready to address the real issues...are you? ""

    Yes, fuck the pie ad!!  This post is NOT about the pie ad itself; that's not important. (Repeat, this post is NOT  about the damned pie ad itself!)

    The results of this discussion have, however, raised an issue, st least for me,  that I DO believe is important, and that shouldn't be dismissed as a distraction, or simple infighting or navel-gazing. That issue is whether or not women's voices, overall, are as valued as the voices of males by this particular porgressive, Democratic community.

    If they are, as I once felt sure of, then this is a place where I want to be, to help fight for all the other important issues we face now.  If it isn't, well then I will also look for somewhere else where I don't get a damned crick in my nexk looking upward for permission to be heard from whatever males are running the joint. Been there, done that, for way too long now.

    I don't know if a rational discussion of this central issue is possible right now, but it sure is grist for a diary I will be working on,  even if it scrolls away in ten minutes. I value this community, and want to see it continue to  thrive. For it to thrive, we do need to address potentially serious issues that have the potential to divide us and cost us good people we need to have here.

    If ever in our history, there was a time when we can LEAST afford a gender split, this is it, folks. We've GOT to get past this, and figure out ways to coexist AND WORK TOGETHER,  or we will get no where fast.

    We call ourselves "Progressives."
    So let's walk that talk, and make some progress reaching across the gender gap, huh?

     

    Silence is Complicity

    by scribe on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:09:55 AM PDT

  •  notes from a prudish, women's studies type (4.00)
    Shit.  I thought I had found a place that valued thoughtful discussion and political and social activism.

    My whole life I've been identifying myself by what I look like and what my biological functions are.  I came here to escape that.  I came here because it didn't matter that I could and have given birth to 4 babies, or that I can make the best darn spaghetti sauce or regrout the tub while breastfeeding an infant.

    I wanted to escape the confining aspect of being identified by my gender.

    I was not aware of the whole "pie" controversy until this morning, and, after reading most of the comments and the dismissive post by Markos, I just feel really shocked to realize that the very site I came to in order to be taken seriously has seriously dismissed me because of my gender.

    That sucks.

     

    •  Cool. (2.66)
      My whole life I've been identifying myself by what I look like and what my biological functions are.  I came here to escape that.  I came here because it didn't matter that I could and have given birth to 4 babies, or that I can make the best darn spaghetti sauce or regrout the tub while breastfeeding an infant.

      Do you have a link?

      Heh.

      Hink

    •  I agree with you (4.00)
      My disappointment in Kos came from his remarks concerning women's studies, and in that ill-thought comment, it felt like it was a marginalization of all we've worked so hard for in making our voices heard, and that our opinions, whether correct or incorrect concerning the pie aid, were not valued at all. That's the larger issue here, and it needs to be addressed. It's always needed to be addressed for a long time now ever since the abortion diaries fight which seems to be recurring because those who perpetrate the argument that women's opinions on abortion should be cast to the wayside in favor of short-term political opportunities that puts women's rights in danger for the long-term, have continued to marginalize us here. It's not whining or complaining or "bitching" on my part, it's just stating the facts here.

      What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

      by slinkerwink on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:20:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Waking up this morning (4.00)
        and since reading the front page and having survived the abortion diaries, I'm starting to feel like the Democratic equivalent of the Log Cabin Republicans.  I'm a Democrat even though they personally dislike me and really don't like acknowledging the reality of what I need?  Not sure how that's going to keep playing daily for me personally.
        •  Actually, I kinda feel like Sheriff Bart. (none)
          "Sorry for the up-yours... How about a nice pie?"

          With my apologies to Mel Brooks.

          Can't believe I just thought of it now.

          "Sir, we've already lost the dock." A Zion Lieutenant to Commander Lock, The Matrix Revolutions

          by AuntiePeachy on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:52:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well, spaghetti sauce... (4.00)
      ...is gender-free.

      As you would agree if you'd ever tasted mine. It rocks.

      It is, basically, my mother's recipe. And before that it was, basically, her mother's recipe. But even that's not gender--that's just the Italian side of the family :-)

      "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

      by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:23:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Recipe, please.... (4.00)
        you can't stake that kind of claim without handing over the goods.
        •  The basic recipe (4.00)
          This is a meat sauce. And you need a whole day for it. So....

          Brown ground beef (a pound or so) one cut-up onion, and a few diced cloves of garlic in the bottom of a large saucepan. If the beef is very low-fat--that 93 or 95% lean stuff--you might want to add a tiny splash of olive oil--if there's not enough fat in the beef, the onions and garlic will burn. Add a bit of salt and pepper, and any other spices to taste (I do a dash of paprika, which my mother doesn't <G>). Cook over medium high-heat until beef is browned and onion is soft.

          Add:
          2 big cans of whole canned tomatoes, preferrably Italian (Roma).  

          About the tomatoes: store-bought is fine. However, if you have a garden, grow Roma tomatoes and, when they ripen, can them. I don't know how to do this but my mother does, and she always has enough for me to pilfer <G>.

          Also add:
          One can tomato paste (those little skinny cans)
          Two cans tomato sauce (I think they're 8 ounces, like a regular-sized vegetable can).
          Bay leaf
          Spices--mom uses dried oregano and dried parsley, I generally use Italian Seasoning, which has oregano and parsley and a couple other things.

          Mix in with the ground beef and onions and garlic. Bring to a simmer.

          Then simmer over low heat for (this is the important part) at least six hours, stirring periodically. When we make a sauce for supper, we start it first thing in the morning. It's 9:45 AM here right now, if I were making a sauce it'd already be simmering <G>. Make sure the simmer is low--you aren't trying to condense or cook down the sauce. If it's too high, that's what'll happen. Trust me on that one <G>. If it does start cooking down some, keep an extra can of tomato sauce around and throw it in. Then turn the heat down <G>.

          Meatballs--if you want them, you do them later. Meatballs should be put in the sauce only about an hour to hour-and-a-half before the sauce is going to be done. Take ground beef, mix with onion, a little bread crumbs and and a beaten egg (the amount is touchy, about an egg-and-a-half for every pound of beef is generally what I shoot for) and form into balls. Drop meatballs in sauce. DO NOT BROWN MEATBALLS BEFORE PLACING IN SAUCE! EVER! God, that drives me nuts. I see someone dropping meatballs in a frypan before putting in the sauce and I know I'm not gonna like it. Why? Because prebrowned meatballs don't soak up the sauce, dig?

          If you're gonna do italian sausage, which I like, drop those in about two to three hours before the sauce is to be done. They go longer than the meatballs. Again, no browning--just drop 'em in.

          When it gets towards the end, and you're boiling the water for the pasta, taste the sauce. Add salt, pepper, whatever as needed.

          Warning: because this sauce has a ton of tomato products and is cooked forever, it is acidic. If you are prone to heartburn, pop a Zantac or something <G>. BTW, this is why my Mom never uses wine in a sauce, which some Italians do--it's acidic enough without wine in it. And the key to 'evening out' the acidity is frequent stirring during the simmering, more as it gets closer to being done. If you taste about an hour or two before it's going to be done and it's so acidic it triggers an acid reflux barrage <G> you can cut it with a bit of water, but be very careful. A little water, stir, taste. A little more if needed, stir, taste. Don't go too far, you don't want tomato-flavored water here <G>.

          What's it feed? Well, in our family of four, we generally use about a pound and a half of spaghetti--a box and a half--and, with this sauce, we have leftovers. So there you go.

          "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

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

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks, Bruce... (none)
            It's gonna be 92 degrees today, so this isn't likely to be a "simmer all day" day, but we'll give it a try soon and report back...:-)
          •  No offense but ... (4.00)
            What kind of Italian puts oregano in their pasta sauce?

            "Wa ya doo-in'? Ya think it's pizza?"

            That's a quote from my father-in-law. What do I know?  I'm 100% Irish-former-Catholic. The first time I met my husband's family, they laughed at me for asking for a glass of milk with my pasta.

            But it's a hard and fast rule with the Italians that I've known that only a "whatever-the-Italian-version-of-a-shiksa-is" puts oregano in tomato sauce meant for pasta.

            Maybe we should fuck the "pie wars" diaries and have a "tomato sauce" war? Now that would be a refeshing change!

            "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 08:55:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Let's not forget (none)
              that there's no such thing as 'Italian food'. What we have here in the USA is a melange of about a gazillion different regional cuisines.

              In other words, you put a Sicilian and a Roman into a kitchen, there's gonna be more arguing than agreeing <G>.

              My family is further out of the mainstream--we're Piemontese. Where's Piemonte? Well, check a map of Italy. See where Italy, France, and Switzerland meet. Disgregard a very small corner in the furthest northwest of Italy where those three meet--that's the Val D'Aosta--and the rest of that area, that's Piemonte. Torino--or Turin--the capital, will be hosting the 2006 Winter Olympics. My family is from a small village about 20 miles east of Torino. In other words, we're northern. Far northern. Turn left and you hit Switzerland <G>.

              The first thing you need to know about Piemontese cooking is this: tomato-based sauces and pasta dishes are not staples in Piemonte <G>. They are borrowings. You can find some dishes like that in Piemonte--especially in Torino--but I'm sure some of the borrowings happened when people immigrated here and found themselves part of the 'Italian-American' community and not the Piemontese.

              The second thing is this: Piemontese cuisine is the heaviest and most meat-heavy cuisine in all of Italy.

              Now, the recipe that I gave you is the one my mother makes, more or less. It's not the one my grandmother made. Gram was first-gen, her parents came from Piemonte. Gram didn't just put beef and meatballs and sausage in the sauce. Chicken breast in the fridge? Shred that and throw it in. Leftover pork chop? Cut it up and in it goes. Gram made a sauce that a spoon would stand up in <G>. As I said--meat-heavy cuisine.

              Piemontese also, by and large, don't cook in olive oil. They cook in butter. Gram did. Mom changed that for health reasons.

              There are other elements of my recipe that are still in there that I know are Piemontese in origin. Cooking it all day. Use of garlic (the Piemontese are the most garlic-crazy people in Italy). Even without my grandmother raiding the fridge, it still has more meat in it than, oh, a Sauce Bolognese (the 'basic' Italian meat-and-tomato sauce). All of this leads me to believe the oregano is also Piemontese. I don't know for sure, but the Piemontese do like herbs.

              So, my sauce is a Piemontese adaptation of Sauce Bolognese, more or less <G>.

              Borrowings happen all the time. My Mom makes a mean Shrimp Scampi. This is not a Piemontese dish--Piemonte is a landlocked province, so Piemontese cuisine doesn't have seafood.

              So, you might ask, what are the staples of Piemontese cooking? What might there be that we call 'Italian' that's Piemontese? Well, meat-heavy dishes and long cooking, as I mentioned. But also cream-based dishes (the French influence). And the biggie? Risotto. Risotto is completely Piemontese--the Piemonte is the main rice-growing area of Italy. Which is why pasta's not a staple. And Antipasto originated mostly in Piemonte.

              Polenta--cornmeal mush--is native of Lombardy, the province next door to Piemonte. The village my family is from is near the Lombardy border. Gram and Mom made polenta all the time.

              So, that's my little primer on differences in regional Italian cuisine :-)

               

              "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

              by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 11:54:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah so you're a Northern Italian! (none)
                So you're one of those snobs.  ;-)

                [That was an "in" joke and not to be taken seriously.]

                Seriously, I'm familiar with the huge number of regional differences in Italian cuisine. It's amazing what just those mountains running down the middle can do! My husband's father's family were from a tiny mountain town east of Salerno. His mother's family was from Bari. I don't think there's even 200 miles separating those towns. The two sides of his family never resolved their dispute on the proper way to make focaccia (of course pronounced "fahgots" by both sides).

                I didn't even know that red sauce was made in Piedmont except as an exotic "foreign" dish. Learn something new every day. ;-)

                I love this. If you haven't done so why not do a Italian food diary? My husband and his brother are talking about putting out a cookbook of their mother's recipes. Now she was a seiously good cook! On the order of Lydia Bastianich good! Her recipe for meatballs hands down makes the best meatballs I've ever tasted, and I've tasted a wide variety in both NYC and Italy.

                "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 12:36:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're right... (none)
                  ...red sauce is only made in Piemonte as an exotic 'foreign' dish, mainly in Torino. However, that's where we get the 'here we are in America' crossovers. And that's how my Gram--and probably her Piemonte-born immigrant mother before her--ended up making a Piemontese 'twist' on a 'generic Italian' dish that isn't Piemontese :-).

                  As for my tortured food history, maybe someday I will do a diary. (I will not talk about pie! :-))
                  Because it gets better. My Piemontese grandmother married a Lithuanian. My Grandfather's parents were deceased by that point, but his older sister taught my Gram some Lithuanian foods. Many Lithuanian foods are, basically, Polish. Plus, my grandmother's brother, my uncle Max, married a Polish woman. So, the upshot of this is that my Italian grandmother could and my Italian-Lithuanian mother still can make galumpkes that are to die for :-).

                  Then my poor mother married a meat-and-potatoes Irishman. "Don't put those damn tomatoes on my plate!" I love Dad, but he thinks steak and mashed are all that's required, ever.  Mom was lucky to have me. My user name could've been Church Of I'll Eat Anything :-).

                  "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

                  by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:10:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Okay, now I'm gonna have to demand ... (none)
                    that you do a food diary one of these days.

                    And please make sure you have all the family anecdotes in it too!

                    And yes ... no pie.

                    Although my Irish mother ... terrible cook for the most part ... could make pastries to die for! She made one of the best cherry pies ever!  Heh!

                    "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 01:56:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Try basil not oregano (none)
            Maybe it's a regional thing (my family is from Gaeta on my mother's side and Venafro on my father's) but I think you'll like your sauce with basil - basil works very well with tomatoes.

            Required geography disclaimer:

            Gaeta is south of Rome on the west coast of Italy and is the major Mediterranean navy base for NATO.  Venafro is up in the mountains between Rome and Naples, a little south of Monte Cassino, and was famous in Roman times (called Venafrum then) for its olive oil.

            Other than the oregano, your recipe resembles my mother's, who got it from my father's mother.  I didn't know about not frying the meatballs, though.  You never know what kind of useful stuff you'll learn on kos...

            If we trash the planet, none of the rest of this matters...

            by Dem in Knoxville on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:30:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, man... (4.00)
        first pie, now spaghetti sauce...I'm getting hungry out here, folks...

        "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 06:50:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Good post (4.00)
      This all has a lot to do with perspctive, I think. If I had been born and raised a white male, rather that a 1940 model female, I probably would never have experienced the outcome of the sexualization and objectification, and stereopying of women every day of my life, as I have. So maybe I would also be wondering why women "get upset"  over this silly stuff. Maybe I'd also believe they were "over reacting."  

      And yes, I deliberate chose a genderless  screen name, just to get away from being identified by gender, so I hear you loud and clear.

      Yes, we've come a long way, baby, but here are still miles to go before we sleep :)  

      Silence is Complicity

      by scribe on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:32:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm starting to get (4.00)
        an idea for a story, of a society where women hold all the power and men are judged solely for the size of their "package"...may need to simmer it while I'm cleaning the apartment today.

        I'll be watching for the diary you referred to, scribe (no relation, of course)...

        "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 06:45:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just (none)
          Do It!  I shall be waiting for the posting of this story.

          Kos may be hoping this will just go away, but I can assure you that while georgia is right, the leftovers from this will not just disappear.

          "Lord what fools these mortals be." Shakespeare

          by outlanddish on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:12:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, the thing is... (4.00)
          ...oftentimes you can't tell. Unless the package is huge, or the pants are extremely tight, or both--it's easy to keep you guessing <G>.

          Here's the thing, though--anyone who doesn't think that women objectify other parts of the male body hasn't ever worked in retail with a bunch of females.

          Why retail? Because it's a prime ogling job. You get to watch lots of people parade in and out of the store. I get to watch girls. And my female co-workers, make no mistake about this, watch guys.

          So, in my experience, the guy-watching comparison to boobs isn't the 'package'--it's the biceps. Or, if the shirt is tight enough, the abs. Rear ends are equal opportunity <G>.

          It was hot here yesterday, so many scantily-clad humans wandered into the store. There was this guy--tall, good looking, wearing a tight tank top and shorts and very nicely buff. Walked down the aisle where I was working with a female co-worker I'm very good friends with. She was practically drooling.

          People who don't realize that women objectify men aren't living in the same world I am.

          "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

          by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:04:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But... (none)
            In a society where the male anatomy was objectified, the clothing manufacturers would design and promote, (almost exclusively) clothes that offer prominent display of the "package." ...

            Anyway:
            Yes, it's just an ad. But in the magazine world, "Ms" magazine was nearly destroyed by the way advertisers eventually come to control editorial. The magazine re-emerged as a thoughtful, thought-provoking human-rights powerhouse when they dropped advertising and started relying only on subscriptions.

            When I saw the "pie fight" ad, I immediately thought, "Oh, great, do we really need another "The Onion"?  Despite frequently excellent content, I avoid "The Onion" because of their advertising. There's enough of that crap out there, do we really need it here, too?

            Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.
            What is the White House Hiding?

            by mataliandy on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 11:25:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Talk about generalizations (none)
      Nobody has dismissed anybody because of gender. Your ability to engage people regularly on this site is concrete proof of that. More proof of your acceptance on this site regardless of gender lies is the fact that nobody is peeking up your skirt or making subtle (or not so subtle) sexual advances at you.
      •  when you engage someone (4.00)
        and are dismissed as "whining," "angry," or some other label attached to "women's studies type" -- is that "acceptance"? Should I feel "empowered"?

        Hey, not getting served at Cracker Barrel is racism, even if there aren't "NO COLOREDS" signs out front. And being dismissed for being a woman/arguing from a gendered perspective is sexism, even if there aren't direct requests for sex.

        •  Not the same thing. (none)
          It's wrong to dismiss someone because they're a woman, but to make a judgement about someone, ie angry, whining, etc. is perfectly acceptable. You couldn't get through life without that ability.

          It's also not sexism to dismiss someone from "arguing from a gendered perspective." I'm not exactly sure what that means, to be honest. It sounds like you think everyone from a particular gender would argue the same way, which could be construed as sexist in its own right. Nonetheless, I'll continue to feel free to listen to and then dismiss arguments that I don't think make sense, regardless of the gender they come from.

          By the way, I have a question for everyone. Didn't we all have an image ready made in our head when Kos said "women's studies type?" Were women's studies types offended by that language? If so, would they be offended if someone used "bunch of jocks" to describe a particular group of men? Just asking.

          hink

          •  Not just women's studies types (4.00)
            Kos specifically used the word "sanctimonious" to describe the type of people he was talking about. That immediately brought an image to my mind but it wasn't all women, it wasn't even the women's studies faculty and graduate students I know.  It was of an easily offended, humorless, angry person. I don't think that describes most Kossacks, so I'm surprised at the number of people who seemed so offended.
          •  in fact, the opposite: (4.00)
            It sounds like you think everyone from a particular gender would argue the same way, which could be construed as sexist in its own right.

            I specifically used "gendered perspective" in order to avoid that trap.

            And yes, making those judgements can be acceptable. But just like attaching "loud" to "black," attaching some of these terms (including humorless, which I see directly below) to arguements that dare to object to women's second-class status, the meaning is much more in the context than your post allows.

            •  Where is this second-class BS coming from? (none)
              Who said the women in that ad had been lowered to second-class citizens? Nobody has tried to suppress the women in this ad except for the sanctimonious types who have to have that starting point in their arguments in order to have an argument. As a woman myself, I'm damn proud of the fact that we're at a point in society where a woman can choose to engage in this behavior of their own volition without consequence, just as she can choose to walk away and do something else with her life without consequence. There's my gendered perspective, whether it meets your criteria or not.
              •  breathe. (none)
                I'm not talking about the ad.
                •  Then who got relegated to secondclass status? (none)
                  And how did it occur?
                  •  are you asking for (none)
                    a history of patriarchy in Western political, social, and economic life?

                    What I said:
                    arguements that dare to object to women's second-class status

                    Are you arguing that women are do not have a second-class status in the US? Or that dismissing the concerns of women on this site does not help perpetuate that?

                    •  Explain that statement (none)
                      arguements that dare to object to women's second-class status

                      What arguments, what objections, and what women's second-class status are you referring to?

                      I object emphatically to the suggestion that women are second-class citizens. Now what arguments are you referring to?

                      •  I think you're confused (none)
                        I am not advocating that women are/should be second class citizens. But for fuck's sake, take a look around you! Pay gap, erosions of the right to determine what happens to our own bodies, rates of violence. Do you really believe that women are on equal footing with men in this country? Socially? Politically? Legally? If so, then I'd like you to explain that.

                        The arguments don't have to do with the ad - they have to do with statements saying "I'll focus on the important shit" which essentially say that issues concerning gender parity and women aren't "important shit."

                        If you don't see it by now I really don't know how I -- or anyone else -- can help you.

                        •  Erosions of rights to determine (none)
                          erosions of the right to determine what happens to our own bodies

                          Funny you respect that right up until the woman decides to parade some cleavage or a bit of thigh around in front of a camera. Then it's a full on assault to everybody involved. I do appreciate the fullest extent of the freedom to protect the right to determine what happens to my own body, and that includes every aspect of it.

                          In terms of measuring women's accomplishments, why are men being used as the benchmark? Cut lose from that crap and go establish your own set of priorities and successes, and stop trying to "measure up to the men" in this culture. Go blaze your own trail. Trust me, it works, I did it myself.

            •  Descriptors (none)
              Below, I asked a woman to provide a link. It was a joke because she was talking about regrouting the tub while breastfeeding. Just a joke and I got 3 separate 1 ratings. That's fine, but I think the term "humorless" can be used here without much argument.

              As far as objecting to arguments about women's second class status goes, I would never. I support women in every way possible, including their right to have erotic pie fights. I just don't see how that's offensive and I don't see how it subjects women to a lower class.

              Just as some men use their brains while others use their muscle to make livings, why can't the same be true for women?

              hink

    •  i dont feel at all you are being identified becaus (4.00)
      of your gender

      an analogy would be;

      andrea dworkin was not dismissed (often villified) because of her gender.....dismissed by many many strong powerful feminists....

      she was dismissed because her ideas SUCKED!!!!!!!!!

      there is a difference.

      I wish I had a penis on the back of my head.

      by anna in philly on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:16:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you are not being dsimissed because of your gender (none)
      andrea dworkin was not dismissed because of her gender....dismissed by lots of powerful thoughtful feminists....

      she was dismissed because her ideas SUCKED!!!!!!!

      there is a difference

      I wish I had a penis on the back of my head.

      by anna in philly on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:24:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As uncalled for (none)
      and generally assholish as Kos' remark was, I would rather he make it than not. It doesn't help to further discussion if we disguise our feelings out of fear of offense. Of course, he also needs to be called on it. We was, and he apologized.

      Often, dKos readers will be split on an issue, and sometimes that divide will break along gender lines. That's a perfect time to make a point about gender bias. It's a terrible time to resign from the site. Or to remain silent to paper over differences.

      Just because this issue has revealed a divide doesn't mean you aren't taken seriously. 99% of the time the gender of a poster is unknown. I encourage you to keep posting.

      Or, as an experiment, try posting under another more masculine sounding name like, "SteelWarrior" and see if you are treated differently. My guess is not much, but the results may be interesting.

      Somewhere around 2001, Mr. Spock grew a beard.

      by Olds88 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:48:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In my experience... (none)
      I don't check to see if a writer is a woman or a man, and if I do happen to notice, because of the content, I only dismiss the content if it isn't reality based.  

      What do your reactions say about the men on this site?  How do Markos' comments dismiss you because of your gender?  Nowhere does he say that women have less to offer to the community here - I would say, and I think that there isn't one person that would not agree with me, that without women at KOS, there wouldn't be any point in coming to read or post.  

      As I've said in another post, I think that Markos was using 'women's studies' as a shorthand for that subsect of feminist that refuses to have a sense of humour about anything, and from what I've seen here on KOS, the women here have wicked senses of humour (including you, obvious by your handle).  Markos should have been a little more serious in his discussion of the ad, but that is reason to think that what you say is going to be dismissed.  

      Maybe we can get TBS to produce an ad that has Gilligan and The Skipper wrestling in a vat of coconut oil to bring some balance to this issue.

      •  I'm not sure that subsect (none)
        actually exists.

        Many feminist women on the daily kos seem to typify the feminists I have known all my life -- sharp as tacks and hilarious.

        Although surely there have been angry women, I think the characterization of even a subsect of man-hating, humorless women is, by and large, a stereotype.

        Perhaps you're right about the "women's studies" comment made by kos as "code" for something else -- and that bugs me.

    •  you arent being dismissed because of your gender (none)
       you wrote;

      I just feel really shocked to realize that the very site I came to in order to be taken seriously has seriously dismissed me because of my gender.
      here is an analogy;

      andrea dworkin had some pretty interesting ideas and opinions...she was dismissed by a  lot of people including lots of famous and powerful women....not because she was a woman...but because her ideas SUCKED!!!!!!!!

      there is a difference.

      not that your ideas suck

      but its the ideas some are dismissing..male and female alike are dismissing them...

      my ideas get dismissed all the time...you get over it

      I wish I had a penis on the back of my head.

      by anna in philly on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:45:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Equivocation (none)
      "I wanted to escape the confining aspect of being identified by my gender."

      It seems to me that a lot of the people really, really offended not only by the ad but also by the Kos diary about the controversy over the ad, are a little confused about his "women's studies types" comment.

      He did not say "feminists." He did not say "women." He said "women's studies types." Men can be women's studies types -- it has to do with how you look at gender roles, and not what gender you happen to be. And many women -- including many feminists -- are emphatically not women's studies types.

      So, nobody said anything about your gender at all.

      The fact that you assumed they had says a lot about what's driving this particular controversy.

  •  An astute comment I once heard... (4.00)
    ...from my sister. She had been new-car shopping.

    "Yeah, at the last dealership, the salesman had a real hard time not staring at my tits. The ol' eyes kept zoomin' right on down there."

    "What did you do?" I asked.

    "Bought a car from him," she said with a chuckle. "Hey, the three dealerships before that, the salesmen breezed right by me and started talking to Billy (her husband) like I wasn't even there. Even when Billy told them that I was looking for a car, they still talked to him. So, the last guy noticed my tits. Big deal. He still dealt with me, and didn't treat me like a brainless 'chick' that has to get hubby's approval to buy a car. The eyes might've been drawn to the boobs, but he talked to me like I had a brain."

    "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

    by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:15:19 AM PDT

    •  I love your sister. (none)
      And she probably got a better deal on the car than she would have anywhere else. And better than her husband would have done too.

      That's how I got my first car decades ago. It was a steal! Thanks for the fond memory.

      "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 09:01:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, God, (none)
        I was just talking to her, and relating her some of this stuff.

        God, she would piss off so many people here :-).

        I guess I get a lot of my ideas about 'feminism' from her--and from a lesser extent my mother--and she rubs a lot of people the wrong way. "This is what I'm going to tell <her nieces, my daughters> about feminism: kick ass, take names, use what works without losing your integrity, and NO FUCKING WHINING!!"

        "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

        by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:03:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  GOD GEORGIA 10 (none)
    I just love your posts. Your arguments are so succinct and precise.  I did not care or even know about the show or the ad until I saw the uproar.
    If women don't want to be objectified stop doing things that allow it to happen.  

    It is similar to the black person who hates stereotypes of sambos and uncle toms yet they play that role in life i.e. a Ken Blackwell type.

    Men love sex and thus sexualized images of women are easy targets of our desires.  Feminists should take note that the problem is not just the exploiters but those who choose to sell out and get exploited for the base of all human evils: money/wealth.

    **side note, now that I have an image of what georgia 10 looks like, perhaps this will fuel my own fantasies about "busty" ladies today. LOL
    Loosen up people! There are more important issues to focus on in these days and times.
    *

    •  Gaaa (4.00)
      Yeah, definitely!

      You women and your luscious boobies should just shut up and accept that you will never be taken seriously.

      I'm sure Georgia10 is consumed with flattery that you will be fantasizing about her today.

      •  I am sure she will toooo (none)
        (insert sarcasm here)
      •  Georgia10 might be offended, (4.00)
        shut up or shut down, but frankly, I doubt it. She's too cool.

        I once lived with a man who was a women's studies minor (bio major) at Cal Berkeley. Ten years have passed since that time; he's still a friend but his strident, puritanical feminism has pretty much thwarted any deep level closeness between us in romance or in friendship. It made our romantic relationship relentlessly political, especially our sex life, especially my boobs (and how I chose to conceal or reveal them). I felt objectified and patronized and not-taken-seriously by my radical feminist boyfriend inasmuch, certainly, as I'd have been had I been sharing my bed with an chauvinist pig. The ideals of feminism ironically eclipsed the needs and complexities of the flesh & blood female standing right in front of him.

        It seems to me Kos, like a lot of guys, has some very minor, forgivable, garden variety issues with women and gender. In this instance, however, I don't think it was even that--I think Markos' tolerance for sanctimony is set at just about zero, and there was more than a whiff of that floating in the breezes here, and it made him angry: in my limited experience with the guy, it seems to me it always does. Anyway, I'm not the least bothered by his little stereotyping blunder (and not the least because he's not far off). In fact I'd like to say THANK GOD he's just a regular joe in this arena and not the strain of overeducated pain in the ass male feminist who berates women for being insufficiently indignant females; that would drive me from this blog faster than just about anything else.

        Is nothing secular?

        by aitchdee on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:42:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If I may point out... (4.00)

      I'd like to tell you which statements you made that I find objectionable and honestly, without malice, tell you why.

      >>If women don't want to be objectified stop doing things that allow it to happen.<<

      I agree that if the women who participate in sexist advertising don't like it being objectified, they shouldn't do it.

      But can you see how your statement may read to women in general?  It lays ALL the responsibility for the objectification of women on women in general and relieves men from any responsibility at all for how they reactor  behave. This is similar to saying a rape victim causd her rape by acting seductive, or telling a 13 year old girl, that if she stopped acting sexy around that uncle, he wouldn't do what he did. Not fun, that one, let me tell you.  

      >>Men love sex and thus sexualized images of women are easy targets of our desires.<<

      Women have always been easy targets for mens desires, that's one of our problems. But as far as I know, men are prefectly capable of controlling their desires, just as women are?

      >> Feminists should take note that the problem is not just the exploiters but those who choose to sell out and get exploited for the base of all human evils: money/wealth.

      I agree with this: I wish more women would take this into consideration in choosing their work.  

      >>*side note, now that I have an image of what georgia 10 looks like, perhaps this will fuel my own fantasies about "busty" ladies today. LOL

      This may have seemed a clever and innocently funny comment to you, I'm sure. But actually, what you've accomplished with it, (without intention, I'm sure, because clearly you do respect Georgia 10's work,) is to highlight her gender, her sexuality, and your use that image of her for sexual fantasy.

      >> Loosen up people! There are more important issues to focus on in these days and times.

      Which honestly comes across to me as if you do not believe womens objections to how they are often treated is of any importance at all. I don't know you, MasterHurriKane, so I won't make that judgement about you. But I can see how your words could make you seem sexist. Can you?  

      Silence is Complicity

      by scribe on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:04:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK. Let's clear it up. (none)
        First of all who is talking about rape? Rape is a crime by all social standards.
        I will not apologize for being socialized to like women and the appeal of women.

        I am a sociologist and thus I understand all of what you are saying, but unfortunately it is one of those paradoxes in our society - I love to look at scantily clad women but I must also control my desires.....please.  When a black person acts like a coon or sambo for Bush or some other bastard, It is ok to me to blame the person taking on that role i.e. Ken Blackwell.  

        But why do we give a pass to the women who play these roles in our media.  I give no passes to the black that play sellout or sambo roles in our society i.e. Armstrong Williams, J.C. Watts, Shelby Steele, Ken Blackwell, Janice Rogers Brown, MC Hammer, and countless other buffoons, sellouts, and fools.

        I am sorry but there is no "blame the victim" syndrome here.  I know that the show is the primary party responsible but the models/actresses are partially negligent in their roles too.  They are socialized to think it is ok to participate because society at large promotes these images.

        Why do you think there are so many strippers now, or why are shows like the Man Show allowed to exist.  This is a patriarchal society which is sexist toward women in its base psyche, just as it is a institutionally racist society and we all take part in its perpetuation.  Rape? Well let's talk about the rape of the poor, the rape of Iraq, the rape of Women's rights, Civil rights.  That is real rape, not perceived or fabricated.

        •  blame the actors! (none)
          Actors (male and female) need these small jobs to get bigger and better jobs.  Its the nature of the business.  Its a tough business since sometimes to put food ont he table you have to take what you can get (like my one actress friend that I was surprised and chagrined to see her in that execrable over-the-top America video from a month or two ago)
        •  wait... (none)
          Compare:
          If women don't want to be objectified stop doing things that allow it to happen.
          with:
          When a black person acts like a coon or sambo for Bush or some other bastard, It is ok to me to blame the person taking on that role i.e. Ken Blackwell.

          "Women". Every single adult female. "A black person". One individual.

          Should black people complain about supporting a media/political/economic structure which rewards a black person who takes on what the complainers  believe to be harmful, stereotypical roles (in any venue -- acting, politics, life, whatever) -- would you tell them:
          If black people don't want to be oppressed (or pick equivalent word/phrase) stop doing things that allow it to happen.

          Well, maybe you would.  It's not precisely bad advice, but is  incomplete -- it simply is not within the power of " women" to unilaterally end discrimination against women, any more than it is within the power of  "black people" to unilaterally end racism. (Or the poor, to end class oppression. Or pick a group.) And -- importantly -- if one, or a few, or many individuals act in a certain way, are all the individuals who belong to that group responsible for their actions? In a "well, don't blame me for enjoying it, you did it" sense.

          I missed the pie diary, and I just don't have time to read all those comments -- but it seems to me that the women who see the ad as objectifying are, in fact, taking action to try to limit objectification.  I seriously doubt that any of the (individual!) women involved in producing that ad/show are online here screaming about how awful it is.  I would bet that most if not all of the women who complained about this ad (or about sexist language, which diaries I did read) complain about such things in places other than dkos.  And take some sort of action. And have consciously tried to organize their lives in such a way as to limit these things they object to.  That is, these women don't want to be objectified and are trying to stop the things that permit objectification to happen. Such as the problematic advertisement of a problematic tv show. (And I'm more troubled that ads for cheap schlock reality TV are apparently considered appropriate to this forum, than in the particular content of those ads.)

          The problem I have with your post is a variation of something I've seen a lot here -- a confusion as to whether an individual or a group (and which definition of the group) is being referenced. The usual example: Someone posts "Republicans are evil unAmerican treasonous slimebuckets" -- intending to refer to elected officials, political activists, support staff etc. -- the structure and infrastructure of the GOP. Someone else responds "You can't tell Joe Sixpack he's unAmerican, that's no way to get his vote" -- having read "republican" as "anyone who votes republican". (And then someone will object to the use of "evil". And someone else will object to the use of "Joe Sixpack". For screens and screens.) (When I've worked this out a bit more, maybe I'll write a diary.)
          You seem to be talking about "women" -- all of us -- but then focus down on the actions of individual women -- and then on society in general -- and so I'm not sure at which level your comments are directed.  The sense I got, even on rereading both comments, is that your meaning is "this is the way the world is and "you women" are part of that world and helped make and continue it and so I won't take any of your complaints seriously (unless, possibly, they're the kind of complaints I make)."  I am going to assume that this is not actually your conscious world-view. But it's the impression I (and apparently a few others) took away.

          (Oh, and you also said "I will not apologize for being socialized to like women and the appeal of women." I didn't see anyone asking that of you. I, as a lesbian, was NOT socialized to like women and the appeal of women, and I do it anyway. No problem with that. Even if you find cat-fighting and mud-wrestling and pie-fighting -- all of which I feel are sad and demeaning, and have very little to do with what I like about women -- appealing. Seriously, if it's about girl-on-girl action -- why the inherent conflict and demeaningly filthy (hygenic sense) circumstances? I don't get it -- or if I do, that's just.... sad. )

        •  Response (none)
          Personally, I wish women in ads like this didn't contribute their skills toward such sexist advertizing either, when there are plenty of other ways to celebrate ones sexuality.

          But who asked you to apologize for liking women? Not me, and I certainly won't argue with you abbut this being a sexist, racist society either. So where to from here?  Do we like it the way it is?  Are you saying that because it's always been this way, we (women) should just accept it and quit complaining about it, or ?.. what are you saying here?

          Please think of how it would feel to have the issues very important to you, that affect your life in many ways, be always related to the bottom of the priority pile, and labeled  as  "less imorptant" than all the others. Womens voices are needed here, and should not be dismissed when legitimate concerns are raised.    

          Silence is Complicity

          by scribe on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:24:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Beautiful. (none)
    "Fuck the pie ad" -- now there's some sentiment that I think both sides can get behind!
  •  Didn't notice the ad (none)
    until Kos pointed it out in his post.

    After quickly reading through his post, I took a gander here and now? STILL don't notice it.

    Busty women who wish to display themselves that way are a dime (nickel?) a dozen these days.  Speaking from a bodybuilding/fitness/figure perspective.

    I should be more specific and say that, "faux busty women" since you know, that's what they really are.  Which is the very reason why I have a "whatever" attitude.

    Whatever.

    Be compassionate as your Creator is compassionate - Jesus

    by smugbug on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:19:37 AM PDT

  •  I was very sad (4.00)
    reading Catnip's diary.  I think you nailed it here:

    "personally, I think he [Kos] has employed the 'you don't like it, screw you' attitude one too many times on this site.  Kos, this IS your site, and god bless you for it, but it's such a great site because of you AND because of us."

    Markos is not the only one who needs to understand this; users need to understand it as well.  I respect Kos for his creation of an online community which has greatly enhanced my knowledge base.  However, on a personal level, I couldn't give two shits what he says or doesn't say.  If he's acting like an ass, so be it, ignore it and move on to the plethora of diaries and comments which are worthwhile.  I'm not suggesting that users shouldn't call out Markos or others for ridiculous statements, but just that this website is a lot more than Markos or front page diarists.

    I hope Catnip does not deprive me, and tens of thousands of other readers, of her unique Canadian perspective.

    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 06:20:26 AM PDT

  •  mysogyny on dkos, promoted by kos (3.73)
    That being said, Kos's tone was, I believe, inappropriate.  

    Far more than inappropriate, it was part of a pattern of behavior by kos that pollutes this website.  I've been around for a while, and he periodically makes some sweeping denigrating, dismissive comment about or to women. It's clear to me that with Markos, it's not a matter of not getting it.  He gets it, all right.  He just doesn't give a damn about women's lives, at least that is what comes through loud and clear in his comments.  And it has nothing to do with whether I agree with his positions on the original issues.  

    •  Maybe you should recant this statement (4.00)
      I don't think Markos hates women.  He just hates silly issues like this uproar over a privately funded ad that is offensive.

      Call TBS if you are so mad about the ad.  Call the FCC and test their stick-to-it-ivness on these issues. Kos is entitled to his opinion.  He is human like the rest of us, and last time I checked his feet got wet when he walked in water.

      •  It's not about the original issue (4.00)
        AS I WROTE.  It's about Kos having a pattern of commenting in a male chauvinist piglike way on women and women's issues.  

        Also, since you mentioned the issue of the ad, some people objected to Kos running the ad. That's a different point of analysis than the ad itself. Your advice to write to TBS does not address those complaints.

        I, for one, don't personally care much about the ad one way or another.  But I do care enough about other Kossacks to listen to their beefs, and honor them as legitimate people who deserve only for me to try and understand where they are coming from.  Kos doesn't appear in comments like this (and others, forming a pattern of behavior) to respect women in particular well enough to try and understand their perspectives.  And that is mysogyny. Kos may be a wonderful guy in person, but his comments on women and women's issues are not wonderful.

        •  hmmmmmmmmmm (none)
          point taken.

          I regret to see the women on this site angry at its organizer.  Perhaps Kos needs to speak to the site on this issue.

        •  asdf (4.00)
          I just saw Markos' rant this morning, and I was just shocked. I thought he may have "had issues" before but his awful diatribe confirmed that--and more--for me.

          And it's apparently getting in the way of his common sense, since we have folks like Reps. John Conyers and Louise Slaughter and Sens. Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid posting here regularly. I don't think every ad should be examined to the "nth" degree but there are some things that are just easy calls to make.

          To just say SYFPH is another side of the Dobsonian coin that we say we deplore. I'm beginning to wonder if that's really true.

          I do hope, however, that some good can come out of it. I hope that we can step back and consider our words and actions. I hope we can take care to not dismiss people's concerns out of hand.

          But my own personal reaction? I'm just completely flabbergasted. This is an amazing community but the host's apparent sexism is just jarring. That's a lot to weigh.

          "Sir, we've already lost the dock." A Zion Lieutenant to Commander Lock, The Matrix Revolutions

          by AuntiePeachy on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:46:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  bingo (none)
          I'm a fan of what Georgia10 writes, and was surprised that she missed it - it's not the ad, it's the attitude.
    •  I think it is (4.00)
      allegations like these which resulted in Markos going after the "women's studies types". Accusing someone of misogyny and racism are big deals and shouldn't be made lightly. Markos took too much shit for criticizing NARAL from a purely political perspective.His criticsm was political and for that he was labelled misogynist repeatedly by certain readers of this site.
      •  Staking Out Political Positions That Hurt Women (4.00)
        ...can be a form of misogyny.  kos's views on NARAL being a fine example.

        Now that doesn't mean that anyone who's critical of NARAL is a misogynist.  But if you repeatedly criticize NARAL and rail against "sanctimonious women's studies types"....well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

        As for the "argument" that kos's misogyny is caused by those who accuse him of it, all I can say is that I suppose there's some comfort that such deathless classics as this old chestnut are still around: If only the [insert your favorite group....e.g., women, blacks, Jews] wouldn't be so uppity, we wouldn't be forced to speak ill of them.  We all got along fine when they knew their place!

        •  Completely Wrong (4.00)
          Criticizing NARAL on a specific issue doesn't equal misogyny . Criticizing NAACP on a specific issue doesn't mean you are a racist. Criticizing ADL on a specific issue doesn't mean you are an anti-semite. It is this leap of illogic that is the issue here. I am not arguing that "kos's misogyny is caused by those who accuse him of it", I'm arguing that those who called Kos misogynist had no basis foe that claim. I'm arguing that Kos lashed out against those(eg.,women's studies grooup) because of these misplaced criticism and not women themselves.
      •  Please understand (3.75)
        I said his comments were mysogynistic, and that he presented himself as a mysogynist by making such comments about women and women's issues on a somewhat regular basis.  I believe I was absolutely accurate (and not alone) in making this observation.  I am not over-reacting, and I'm not part of some cartoon-like mythical group of hysterical ill-shaven bra-burners.  And it certainly is not anyone's other than Markos' fault that he persists in making these crappy, ill-considered, exclusionary, mysogynist comments. He's going after a fiction in his own head, not after the reality of who women who fight for women's lives are.

        As for the NARAL issue, apparently reasonable people can disagree.  I disagreed completely with  Markos' perspective, which I believe to be situated within whatever is in his head about women that has been evidenced by his pattern of crappy behavior toward women and women's issues.  In other words, had Markos not already considered women and women's issues to be simply pesky little special interests to be swatted like flies every now and then, he might take the implications of recent increasing surveillance and discipline of women's bodies just a little more seriously and not continue to promote anti-choice candidates. Because first they come after me, eventually they'll come after you and worse, your sons and daughters.

        •  Kos has never (none)
          made misogynistic comments, letb alne on a somewhat regular basis. You are deliberately misrepresenting someone without any proof. It is you and others who are ascribing something to Kos that just isn't there because he dared to attack the sacred entity that NARAL is for their political judgement.
          •  Never???? (none)
            1. You've read every single post kos has ever made?
            2. Would you recognize misogynism if it hit you in the head?

            Do you need 100 women to be in your face at the same time before you will realize that
            KOS IS SOMETIMES LACKING FOR SOCIAL FINESSE!!!!

            My take on it has just been that he's still a bit immature.

            However, the point that, SINCE HE IS THE SITE HOST, he should get a handle on the issue--is valid.

            Saying 'never' is the writer's equivalent to having the word 'ignoramus' tattooed on the forehead.

            Hijack their frames! Cheap, easy, effective.

            by chriscol on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:53:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You need to learn the ratings rules for this site. (none)
          The rules prohibit abusive ratings, which is what you engaged in when you rated me a 1 for simply agreeing with Kos.
          •  It wasn't because I disagreed with you (none)
            You wrote:

            "I have never agreed with you more, Kos. n/t"

            I found this to be "unproductive" but I supposed one could argue it was "marginal."

            •  You find it "unproductive" (none)
              to state one's agreement w/ a diarist?  But you find it productive to repeatedly call Kos a mysoginist and say that he "pollutes" this web site and that "He just doesn't give a damn about women's lives, at least that is what comes through loud and clear in his comments"?  I find that hard to believe and think you are trying to cover up the true reason for your abusive "1" ratings.

              I'm no Kos defender on many topics, but your name-calling posts on this topic are among the least productive I have seen.  I would expect better from a women's studies professor.  Hopefully, you are more substantively convincing in the classroom.

        •  Look (4.00)
          I didn't necessarily agree with Kos's take on NARAL, but let's make sure we know what we're talking about, here.

          He didn't criticize NARAL's issues, or their basic stance. He criticized them for political endorsements, most specifically Chaffee.

          It's a matter of degree, and prioritization. Kos has made no secret of the way he thinks: Partisan Democrat first, support of <insert issue here> second. As I said, I don't agree with his whole take on the NARAL thing, but he has made some worthwhile points about a democratic majority being the best way to safeguard abortion rights, better than picking-and-choosing candidates. It's a valid argument, it's not 'misogynistic', and it's a perfectly legit way to prioritize competing approaches.

          And, in the Chaffee case, as Armando has pointed out repeatedly, the only Dems in the race right now are pro-choice. Endorsing a pro-choice Repub 18 months before an election when the two competing dems are also pro-choice is remarkably short-sighted.

          The other one's Pennsylvania. Look, if I lived in PA, Pennacchio would have my vote in the Dem primary, and I'd be working for him. Heck, even though I don't live in PA I'm trying to scrape up a few extra bucks to send him.

          However, if he loses the primary, I'd be voting for Casey. Over Santorum? Easy. And I hope NARAL would realize that Casey'd be far preferable to Santorum.

          It's not just about Harry Reid as Majority Leader. It goes further than that--it goes to committees. Legislation related to choice tends to come out of Judiciary, and sometimes Health Education Labor and Pensions. If the Dems regain control of the Senate, the chairmen of those two committees would be Pat Leahy and Ted Kennedy respectively (they're the ranking minority members). Anti-choice legistation will never get out of a committee chaired by Leahy or Ted.

          As I said, I don't completely agree with Kos. I think we should be fighting harder for Pennacchio, and Chaffee's been a reliable vote for choice. However, where Kos is right (Armando, too) is that NARAL doesn't see that getting Pat Leahy in charge of Judiciary is more important than who one single senator from Rhode Island or PA is.

          "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

          by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:36:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Examples of Comments (none)
          Could you give examples of Kos' comments that you found mysogynistic?  I can't think of any but, I haven't been on the site as long as you.  

          Do you think the timing of this comment, on top of the NARAL issue, might be contributing to the perception of misogyny?

          •  Why I say misogyny (none)
            Misogyny = hating women.  Three examples of Kos' misogyny:

            The current ad thing, as I explained above.  Kos went out of his way to swat his hand at women who had a problem with him running that ad.  He never had to agree with them, but they deserved respect.  He was disrespectful and derogatory.  He took back the thing about the "women's studies set," but didn't apologize.  Because he doesn't give a damn, apparently.

            The NARAL thing.  It's not just that he disagreed with NARAL's position, he was dismissive and derogatory toward an organization that has been out there on the front lines saving women's necks.

            Another example that comes to mind, but I'm not going to search back because I never have much luck with the search engine, is when Kos had selected a new crop of irregular front-pagers.  It was the time before the last, I think.  And he said, basically, "don't bother giving me any shit about not having enough women on the front page."  Again, very dismissive, especially given the fact that there was a legitimate gripe since at the time Kos had no or maybe one female front pager.

            You may think that being dismissive is not really being a hater, but I happen to think that it is practically worse than hating.  When you hate, you care about the other party.  In these cases, Kos presented himself as not giving a damn about women or women's perspectives.

            I know I'm kind of a broken record here: I think that Kos could have taken the same positions on the issues and done it in a more respectful manner, and I mean respectful in a true way, not just in tone.  Respectful of women's existence, women's importance, women's rights.  

            Yes, I'm an actual women's studies professor and proud of it!

  •  Sorry, But Where's The Poll? (none)
    I want to vote for apple pie with a couple of scoops of good vanilla ice cream. That's my favorite. And I think politically a very safe choice.

    (God, I've never been happier that my computer can't handle diaries with over 200 comments. I shudder to think of what's going on in that main page pie diary).

  •  I like pie (4.00)
    and I like women...man if I could just get rid of all these hormones and my sex drive maybe  I'd be a better person.   But, until then I'm going to occassionally stare at women's breasts, arms, necks, ears, legs, and anything else that I find appealing.  And, believe it or not...I'll still be able to appreciate the intelligence in that woman as well.

    Now, besides bashing me for being honest...is anyone bashing the women who participated in this Godless act of objectification?

    •  wellll... (none)
      I don't think anyone will be bashing you for saying that you look at and appreciate women's bodies.  Was the problem ever really about that?

      This site is running pretty slow this morning (is it just my computer?) so I haven't read EVERYTHING, but most of the women here were troubled by Markos' post, not the ad itself, which, as a woman, you learn to easily dismiss.

      •  i understand. (4.00)
        The site is running slow for me too.
        Markos really needs to address this concern and soon so this does not block our vision of REAL problems.

        I re-read the post Kos put on the front page, I can understand why many women are upset at his tone.

        •  Or Maybe kos Should STFU About This For Awhile (4.00)
          Like Georgia10, I really didn't care so much about the ad, but was very upset by kos's comments.  I'm not sure that what the site needs at this point is another rehashing of this debate.

          As a number of folks have pointed out, kos has earned for himself the reputation of making ill-thought out and possibly misogynistic comments.  He's done this over a fairly long period of time. If this post was a one-time slip, perhaps a quicky apology on his part would make a difference. But given his track record, I think he and we would be better served by some real, private reflection on kos's part.  kos is a smart, progressive guy.  I think he needs to talk privately to some flesh-and-blood "women's studies types," and ponder why his posts on NARAL and now on the pie fight have upset folks so much.  If he has a change of heart, he can show it to us by changing his behavior in the long run.  Until then, many of us will remain grateful for the site and community that kos has created, while taking things he writes with a big grain of salt.

          In the short run, I think we've discussed this whole pie thing plenty. And I for one really don't care what kos has to add to the discussion at this point.

  •  I know I'm repeating Myself (4.00)
    But when you see an ad on any site that you don't like, just open the site using Mozilla (which is free) and righ click the photo and then select the option of blocking photos from that url.  It works on dkos pie and pig ads as well as Yahoo, and any other site that is feeding you photo ads you find annoying.
    •  Firefox with Adblock (none)
      I use Adblock and never see most of the ads. I find them all annoying, especially ones that move.

      That said, the only thing that has bothered me is the tone of Kos's post, which I feel was disrespectful. Especially the "women's studies" comment.

      Add that to the dismissing of pro-choice activists in the last week or so, and I am begnning to feel that this site is not as open to women as it is to other Democratic constituencies.

      The first thing we have to do is stand up for what we believe in. Howard Dean

      by coral on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:35:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am Woman Hear me Roar (4.00)
    Yes I am a woman and you know what there are a hell of a lot of important issues on the brink of setting us back for a long, long time here in this country and this ad ain't one of them.

    This ad unlike laws that BushCo and GOP would like enacted will not stop you from being a powerful woman.  This ad does nothing to you.  

    The Bush administration and a whole host of nutjobs are seeking to "objectify" you in ways you couldn't possibly imagine.

    The Democratic Party over the past 12 years has fallen victim to itself on these kinds of tiny "single-moment" events while our opposition has carried on and done REAL dammage.  The GOP is more powerful than ever and they have you in their sights - they are poise to shoot your head off and you are worrying about an ad.

    If people who make pie fight videos want to support you ability to have public discourse about how to fucking save yourself from almost certain "real" and not "perceived" slavery - take their money and save yourself.

    Big Picture Big Picture Big Picture

  •  And the Enemy grows stronger. (4.00)
    One fundamental thing we forget at our peril.

    The Coulters, the Boltons, the DeLays, the Scalias and (worst of all) the Bushes of this nation are not stopping to gloat while we in the reality-based community savage one another over things like the pie fight.

    They're consolidating their strength.  They're building up their power and undermining the foundations of our resistance to that power.

    Does the pie fight raise issues that need to be dealt with?  Duh.  Yeah.

    But the point is: right now, we cannot afford to fight that fight.

    When we've managed to beat back the reactionaries, when this nation has regained some shreds of its honor, when we no longer look at the newspaper and wonder how many more days until the theocratic state the Founding Fathers feared becomes a reality ... then we can afford to tackle the pie fight issues head-on.

    But now ... it only makes us weaker.

    The objectives of those of us in the reality-based community are not going to be exactly parallel; we must accept that, even cherish it, for otherwise we would be no better than the lock-step political conformity that we read about in Orwell and see with fear in our own dreaded future.  But all the same, until the day comes that we've defeated that dark future, we've got to hang together.

    Don't doubt that Ann Coulter would love to see us all hanged seperately.  And at the rate we're going, she may just get her wish.

    (Apologies to Ben Franklin.)

    •  I understand where you are coming from BruceK (4.00)
      For some though who are feminist leaning it is getting hard to distinguish who the enemy is here who is growing stronger.  Is it the "Third Right" or is it the guy standing next to us?
    •  I don't buy it (none)
      I don't think there's an argument that everyone here needs to be in concert on all of the issues. The pie ad - take it or leave it. Not a big deal. But what is important is how we treat one another as we move forward in the big picture.

      I'm not attempting to compare the experience of women in 2005 to slavery, but a simple analogy may help: African Americas fought in the Civil War. And women here do not want to contribute to a cause that will leave them behind.

      •  I think I may not have been clear. (none)
        I didn't say that we all needed to be in concert over all the issues.  Indeed, I'm fairly certain we won't all be.

        The problem comes up when people within the movement for change aren't willing to compromise on their personal visions, or defer one fight in order to win another battle .. or recognize that people whose attitudes may differ from their own may be on the same side.

        That's where we're being slaughtered.

        •  okay (none)
          but isn't there a way to have these battles while still making progress?

          I think we commend the GOP too much in this arena - for their ability to come together and unify rather than be divisive. While it certainly has had short term advantages, the radical shift of the platform over the past 8-12 years occurred pretty quietly. Now that those who endorsed it have upstaged the moderates who were part of the dog-and-pony show, there is considerable dissent and splintering.

          This is the kind of stuff we need to figure out if we're going to move forward in the right direction and wind up where we want to go. And frankly, if for no other reason, the Democratic Party can't get there without women.

    •  Perhaps the answer then (none)
      is for those who are dismissing women's concerns to rethink whether women's control over their own bodies is really such an unimportant issue to the future of the Democratic Party.  What percentage of Democrats are women?  Does it mirror the general population?  If so, women would represent more than 50%.  I suspect it is more like 55%.
      •  Maybe it's not a matter of dismissing a concern. (none)
        To me, the question is, are we all ready to fight that particular fight and win?  Or will the cost be too great?

        If we fight the wrong battles at the wrong time and waste our strength - over a pie fight, for crissakes - then the Enemy will grow stronger, and we may never be able to break their stranglehold.

        We can't afford to splinter over such things.  George Orwell has already warned us of the end-game if we fail.

        •  Which fights? (none)
          You wrote:

          "To me, the question is, are we all ready to fight that particular fight and win?  Or will the cost be too great?"

          "If we fight the wrong battles at the wrong time and waste our strength - over a pie fight, for crissakes - then the Enemy will grow stronger, and we may never be able to break their stranglehold."

          "We can't afford to splinter over such things.  George Orwell has already warned us of the end-game if we fail."

          If we can't afford to splinter, then your side has to compromise too.  If it's always the women's issues that have to take a back seat, then the battle will be lost anyway.  If we lose the Supreme Court it's all over.  And we will lose the Supreme Court if we start electing "Democrats" who don't value women's right to control their own bodies.

          Just when is the "right time" to fight this battle?

  •  I couldn't bring myself... (none)
    ...to read all the pie diaries. I'll confess that was mildly taken aback by the ad, but couldn't get a good enough head of steam worked up about it to find myself having anything worthwhile to say about it. It also didn't help that I don't watch much teevee, so until I came across an ad on cable last night I didn't realize the ad's relationship to the show that it's promoting (I thought for a bit there that kos had crossed over into letting softcore porn advertisers buy time here, which I admit surprised me a bit--but I digress).

    That being said, I have got to know from someone who has been engaged in the dialogue--has anyone yet been told SYFPH?

    ;)

    Thanks, georgia10, for a cogent summary and for an acknowledgment that we have other business to attend to. I for one am ready to get back to reading the ACLU FOIA documents from Guantanamo, the Daily Bolton Absurdity, and our plans for how we're going to take over a chamber or two in 2006.

    There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. --Benjamin Disraeli, cited by Mark Twain

    by sheba on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:54:14 AM PDT

    •  LOL! (none)
      I too came to this whole thing just this morning with a WTF?  kind of reaction..   But the only reason I've kept reading the Pie diaries was my growing fear that NO ONE had made a single pie-hole reference.  Bickering, fighting, accusations of not being a REAL dem, that's all par for the course at dKos.  But to have lost our sense of self-referencing snark!  Egads no!

      You've restored my faith in this community.

  •  Kos is a very young man (early thirties). (none)
    He has come from very difficult circumstances and  has done far more for the common cause in his short life than I have in my almost 69 years. He is a great man but still young and growing but with a temper I'm sure. (My temper is long gone.) He's going to say plenty of dumb and hothead type things. We can criticize but we have to give him a pass when he does.
  •  Want pie with that? (4.00)
    Well now, all future kos polls will take on a much deeper meaning!

    I missed out on the whole pie controversy because I turned off pictures (but not the ads themselves) a long time ago. I find many of them offensive, the same as I find some advertising content offensive in almost all media. I still see the text of all the ads, and now and again there is one that interests me enough to read more. The TBS ad, like most of them, didn't meet that threshold for me, so I missed it.

    It is nice to have a choice. Sounds like there are others here who could benefit from exercising theirs.

    Meanwhile, it's fun to see people troll rate Markos once in awhile! He might lose his trusted user status soon!

    Me, diplomatic? (2.40 / 15)

    When has that ever happened?

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

    by kos on Sun Jun 5th, 2005 at 23:16:28 CST
    *</tbody></form>
    <tbody></tbody>
    Others have rated this comment as follows:
    <tbody> </tbody>
    Marisacat 1
    Viktor 3
    KevinA 4
    pb 4
    Rimjob 4
    sphealey 3
    Nonpartisan 2
    Molly Pitcher 1
    expatjourno 4
    TravnTexas 1
    sngmama 2
    ForeignFighter 1
    KPlayer 1
    bayprairie 1
    uk benzo 4
  •  asdf (4.00)
    one thing i noticed after all the posts about the pie-fight ad was, a lot of people had their bubbles burst.

    due to the popularity of this site, and the fact that that popularity has put him on teevee a few times, kos has unfortunately been elevated to some sort of 'blog god'. which is unfortunate, because it creates a cult of personality that blinds people a little.

    and when he says something that pisses those people off, the whole thing shatters.

    its a blog, people. run by a regular person. he's not a politician.

    and we wonder why we lose elections..

    alcohol and night swimming. it's a winning combination!-l.leonard

    by chopper on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:02:41 AM PDT

    •  asdf (none)
      I have plenty of problems with positions Kos takes, but that doesn't stop me from coming back and engaging with him and others. Just because he's not 100% enlightened (as none of us are), doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bath water, as they used to say.
    •  Interesting comment (4.00)
      its a blog, people. run by a regular person. he's not a politician.

      You're right - at least so far.

      I think people learn about this site and its members and grow to like it.  In the right-wing desert in which many of us live our lives, this site often serves as a verdant, pleasant oasis of diversity, progressiveness, and validation.

      We like it because it helps us feel comfortable in our beliefs.  And it helps us make a difference through contributions, research, publicity, and knowledge.  

      We make assumptions about it and its owner.  If Kos (or anyone else) is progressive, and issue "A" is a progressive issue, than Kos (or anyone else) must share my heartfelt beliefs about issue "A."  What a letdown when that doesn't happen.  

      We're all different.  We all have been shaped by our life experiences, our economic situation, our ethnicity, our religious beliefs (or lack thereof), our hopes for the future, our sexual orientation, and our sex.

      Was Kos's original post wrong?  Yes it was.  Did he soften its most egregious passage?  Yes he did.  Do I think he was attacking all women, in particular those who have been involved in women's studies?  No, I don't.  I believe he was using it as shorthand for the most extreme among the group.  It was, as with most generalizations, too broad and too insensitive to diversity.

      If you feel offended or marginalized by his post, keep one thing in mind: he could have edited the post to remove all traces of the "women's studies" slur.  But he didn't.  There is honor in that decision.

      So - if I could make a plea to those who feel inclined to leave this community: go ahead. Leave.  

      But come back after emotions have cooled.  I myself left after the election in 2004.  I couldn't stand this place.  But I've come back and have continued to learn and grow from all of you.  

      When you return, use your passion and knowledge to educate us, to make reasonable demands for sensitivity, and to work with us to positively influence the political direction of this country.

  •  Fafblog's Fafnir Has To Be Hurt (4.00)
    The latest in the friday pie blogging series. Pies should bring people together. Pies stand for community. Pies stand for fairness when dividing a pie. Pies stand for individuality when one requests the size of the slice. It is the food of revolution.
    (Apologies to Fafnir)  
    I think there is some sexual symbolism inherent in pies involving their "tart" look and who traditionally is called on to make them.
    Discuss.
  •  So This Is How dKos Will Die? (none)
    Calling Karl Rove:

    The best defence is a good "offense".

    "I could be cold. I could be ruthless. You know I could be just like you." -Three Days Grace

    by prophet on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:14:32 AM PDT

  •  Another perspective... (none)
    My only comment on this whole debacle...

    I wish that the people who so vehemently critized this ad (and Kos) were just as vocal about the misandry that's also prevelant in commercials.  Men are typically portrayed as clueless, helpless, sex-crazed idiots.  Where's the outrage here?

    •  I concur with that line of thought too. (none)
      All of this just perpetuates the gender roles that our society has prescribed for centuries.

      European/American Society promote sexism/racism/elitism and every other ism you can think of....sorry folks, that is capitalism for ya.

    •  Goose/gander thing (none)
      Objectification and put-downs go both ways. I can't count the number of ads for products directed at women that show a stupid, clueless man rescued by an all knowing woman. What crap! The gender wars are just that, with both sides capable of destructive behavior. My answer to this war - a sense of humor and the ability to appreciate each other for our unique gifts.
      •  thank you... (none)
        that is entirely correct. And I don't get particularly offended by the "dumb guy" ads, because I have a sense of humor, I know there's at least a nugget of truth to them, and because I know that everybody should be a target of humor in some fashion.

        If we're going to clean up all the "sexist" commercials, then we'd better clean up ALL of them. And lose our sense of humor in the process.

        ...Freedom is on the march. Straight to the gas chamber. this is infidelica...

        by snookybeh on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:45:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  They bug me too (none)
      and that's also why I've never been able to get into some of the current sitcoms like "Everybody Loves Raymond", "King of Queens", "Yes, Dear", etc. You know the ones: clueless man, frazzled wife, obnoxious in-laws. None of those apply to my life, so I find no interest. (Okay, the spouse is a bit clueless at times, but freely admits it and does not hesitate to ask me for help when needed.)

      Maybe that's why I like shows like "Clean Sweep" and "In A Fix" on TLC so much -- on those shows, everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, and there's no gender generalizations. (You should see Jennie Lyn lay drywall!)

      "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 03:28:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  hey, its not just men (4.00)
    who fantasize about women.
  •  Does anyone but me (4.00)
    find the show New Gilligan's Island rather anti-progressive.

    The original show was a silly bit of fluff about a disparate group of people who got along together despite their different backgrounds. It also celebrated ingenuity (who know that the entire panoply of 20th century gadgets could be built entirely from coconuts and bamboo). Clearly, the show was based on a generally progressive worldview.

    The current show (which I am judging entirely by TV ads) seems to be set up in such a competitve fashion that it brings to mind Hobbes and Machiavelli, not to mention The Lord of the Flies.  The world according to Rumsfeld, GWB et al.

    I find this and similar show all so ... repellent.  Maybe the hostile ethos of the show invaded DKos and helped create the great 'pie ad' controversy?

    "Help us to save free conscience from the paw -- Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw." --John Milton

    by ohiolibrarian on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:23:50 AM PDT

  •  The irony of it all. (4.00)
    I'm not ready to submit my GBCW diary yet, but reading Kos' Pie diary this morning just about pushed me over the edge.  His comments were offensive, but even more offensive to me was the cheering and back-slapping that went on in the comments.  A lot of people were just not willing to take the issue seriously.  And as many others have noted, this is a typical reaction to feminist critique.  

    The irony is that just last week Kos put up a poll in order to see how many women use the site.  Well, now that we know what he thinks, I don't want to hear Kos fucking whine any more about the disparity in the number of women and men participating on his site.  Kos, how many of the women here do you think identify as feminists?  Do you think your comments are going to encourage or discourage our participation?  

    I love the dKos community.  But if this is how things are going to break down, maybe it's not worth it.

    Sigh.

    --Laura

    B.A. with Honors in Art History, Certificate in Women's Studies*, UNC-Chapel Hill, 1992

    *when I graduated, a Women's Studies degree did not yet exist at UNC

    "I'm not interested in that same liberal claptrap. That meow, meow, meow, ironic detachment." -- Stephen Colbert

    by SneakySnu on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:25:53 AM PDT

    •  Well ya'know I will (none)
      Apologize for him.  

      Please do not leave the community.

      •  That's really nice of you (4.00)
        But Kos was certainly right about one thing:  we have a choice to read and participate or not.  Hell, there are a lot of great lefty blogs out there (my faves are the new TPM Café, Michael Berubé, Bitch Ph.D., Feministing, and I have a fondness for Booman Tribune, though I haven't been participating over there).  

        I think I'll be devoting much more of my blogging/lurking time over at those sites.  

        If Kos wants to attract members who are interested in a reality show in which women vapidly play out a tired sexual fantasy, with all of "The Bachelor" codes of femininity in place, then he's welcome to them.  I am not one of them.

        "I'm not interested in that same liberal claptrap. That meow, meow, meow, ironic detachment." -- Stephen Colbert

        by SneakySnu on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:04:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  LOL (4.00)
      As another Laura, I am always impressed by, and envious of, women with college degrees.

      Here's me:

      Lakewood High School, class of 1978, uninspired, aimless "C" student.

      Graduate of the School of Getting married way too young to the first guy with a steady job who asked me.

      Advanced degree in "Women's Studies" gained through practical experience being a poor, undereducated mother of 4 trapped in a miserable marriage and fidning no way to help myself get out.

      The thing I liked best about this community is that most of the time it didn't matter that I felt like a poser in a room full of academics.  It saddens me to hear Kos's dismissal of me and trivialization of issues that are important to me.

      •  clarification (none)
        the "LOL" was directed at myself and not you, Snu.  You've always been one of my favorites.  :)
        •  A big NC smooch for you! (4.00)
          Listen, I just put that bit about my degree up there because I wanted other readers to know that I am a proud, card-carrying member of sanctimonious women's studies set.  Not because I wanted to flaunt my degree.

          One of the amazing things about dKos is the incredibly sophisticated level of discourse by people with a whole range of backgrounds and experiences.  So you didn't go to college?  Who cares?  (I'm feeling anti-institutional these days.)  

          "I'm not interested in that same liberal claptrap. That meow, meow, meow, ironic detachment." -- Stephen Colbert

          by SneakySnu on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:12:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  hey laura (none)
        I've been trying to think of something encouraging to say but I guess you don't really need it - seems like you've arrived in your own fashion. By an accident of fortune some got college degrees others didn't - a college degree is worthy of respect but raising four kids in hard circumstances is worth respecting too and you have mine.

        Also, I hope you don't let today's dKos blowup get you down. Kos is learning what matters just like the rest of us and frankly his voice is just one of many on this site. I look forward to reading your comments in the future.

        -s

        •  shucks (none)
          I've gotten beyond feeling embarrassed about my wimpy high school graduate status.  There will always be a bunch of if-only's that I go through when I am feeling sorry for myself.  And, hey, what's another 45 year old college student added to the mix? :)
    •  Sneaky, I'm hoping that ... (4.00)
      ...the several people here who have said that the "sanctimonious" post by Markos was the final straw for them will reconsider.

      Let me repeat a couple of things I wrote last night as replies to other folks who were pondering leaving or had already decided to do so:

      To sandblaster:

      ... 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 every day, 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.

      Loquatrix asked: What to do? What to do?

      You answered your own question. "...the good shit doesn't get accomplished when outspoken intellectual women withdraw from the conversation."

      The very serious arguments we're having in various threads  - about reproductive rights, gender hard-wiring, use of "pussy" as epithet, 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 from those who say we should ease up on this single issue or that one for the good of the Democratic Party just how much they 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.

      But I didn't say it best, TrueBlueMajority did in response to sandblaster:

      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.

       

      **

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

      Visit The Next Hurrah

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 11:07:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can we move on now, please? (none)
    I had had enough of this issue and almost did'nt read Georgia10's diary, but I'm glad now I did, as I agree with what she said and how she said it. I also agree with the folks who got upset at Kos for his "women's studies" gibe, which he has rightfully retracted. That was above and beyond the call of snark.

    What I just wish is that all the energy that's gone into this brouhaha could be channelled into acheiving other goals. What if everyone who's taken the time to comment on the multiple pie threads also wrote to their reps or local media about election reform of the Downing street minutes?

    Al Queada is a faith-based initiative.

    by drewfromct on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:35:21 AM PDT

    •  Just explain to me why (none)
      protecting women's rights to control their own bodies is not on a par with the issues you mentioned--Downing Street Minutes, etc.  What do you think the whole debate about federal judges is about anyway?  Thank goodness, I'm beyond the days of worrying about unwanted pregnancy, but I feel for the young women when we return to the coathanger days.
      •  the judge (none)
        fight is about procorporate judges being snuck in as profundementalist..

        i will fight for women's rights until i die, but i honestly i consider the sum of america's foreign policy more important.  DSM is also about destroying republican credibility, which helps our movement on almost all fronts, including reproductive rights.

        i guess i set my priorities in terms of estimations of suffering.  in many ways, it is a sad practice of necessity.

        •  For the fundamentalists (none)
          the judge fight is ultimately about abortion.  But the judges they put in will affect all of us. Furthermore, if you can't see the suffering caused by denial of women's rights to their bodies--around the world, down through history, you are blind.  Right now, women are dying around the world because the U.S. is fighting against abortion, birth control, and sex education.  That's only a secondary issue if you don't value women.
          •  In a war where we're so outnumbered (none)
            we have to pick the battles we can fight and win in the short term.Dissemenating the DSM can help push the rethugs out of power. That makes it important NOW. Fighting for election reform is an even higher priority. It's useless to vote for women's rights, pro-choice candidates when rethugs are in charge of counting the votes.We won't be able to take back control of the gov't until we have honest elections again. Until then, issues such as womens rights, the environment, etc., as important as they are, are putting the cart before the horse.

            Al Queada is a faith-based initiative.

            by drewfromct on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:29:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  one final note of clarification (4.00)
    Anyone who read my farewell diary last nite will note that I did not say one word in it about this ad controversy. I did not even participate in the ad diaries. I had already decided that it was time to to a break from dKos for various reasons and the comment made by Markos last nite helped me make a decision that's been a long time coming.

    Thanks for all of your kind comments. I meant every word I said in my farewell to all of you and to those who have asked me to stay, as much as I appreciate your support, I have chosen not to.

    I chose to post a farewell diary rather than to slink away in the dark of nite because I wanted kossacks to know how invaluable you've been and to wish you all the best. If you have any replies to this comment, please add them to my farewell diary so they don't distract from Georgia's discussion. Thank you.

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

    by catnip on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:00:11 AM PDT

  •  Welcome to the titty bar (4.00)
    When I was a daily reader here, I used to read your diaries a lot, georgia10.  I have a great deal of respect for your opinions.  I think you've oversimplified this issue.   I know that at the least you've missed my major objection.

    I haven't been around DKos much since Jan., and when I am here lately I'm lurking.  There seemed to be a sort of sour, futile, navel-gazing tone after the election, and I found a lot of talk and not a lot of action or useful information.  Things seems to be starting to come around again, and I'd been thinking about participating more.  When I saw that ad on the front page, I felt as though I had walked into my local library and stepped into a big steaming pile of dog doo.

    Why is it that all the online communities in which I participate have to turn into titty bars?  Is this ok because it's online and we're not speaking in flesh-and-blood in a BrickAndMortar building?  

    If all of us who participate here lived in the same town and met in person to talk instead of online, would it be just fine for Kos to schedule all our meetings in the local strip club?  Would the guys in this group feel just as comfortable with it if the kickback was coming from Chippendale's instead, and every place we met for discussion had someone's dick threatening to flop out of a g-string?  Is it ok for a seriously underfunded school to put the cafeteria ladies in Hooter's hotpants and collect some money that way?

    What Kos has done is the equivalent of asking us to hold our meetings in a titty bar.  When we object to having yet another of our online discussion spaces devoted to someone shoving their tits in our faces, he accuses us of being humorless and sanctimonious.  Unbelievably, he also states that it's OUR FAULT that titties are so popular on his website now.

    I think I might have made a mistake coming back here.  Yeah, I have a problem with the ad.  Yeah, I have a problem with his response.  And yeah..I have a problem with all the people missing the point and throwing out insults like prude, and humorless.

    I'm not humorless.  In fact I wrote an essay on this topic five years ago for another online community, and it was somewhat funny (in a sarcastic sort of way).  I may republish it as a diary, if I decide I care enough.

    So, I'd like to answer your question, georgia10.

    Fuck distractions.  Fuck the infighting.  Fuck the navelgazing.  I'm ready to address the real issues...are you?

    Fuck yes.  With people who are smart enough and serious enough, and who value my participation enough to not hold their meetings in a titty bar.

    Clues

    _As I was going up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish, I wish, he'd go away._

    by Clues on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:02:27 AM PDT

    •  Hmmm. (none)
      Judging from the way you phrased this, I'm assuming you are talking about the ad here on Kos itself, not the video it leads to (which I haven't watched). Assuming that I'm right about that, I have to wonder: if that's a 'titty bar', what you'd say about my store on any nice day?

      It was 85 here yesterday, I worked--and at any given moment in the store I could've pointed out far more 'titty' being shown than you see in that ad.

      I dunno. Maybe I'm somewhat innoculated by my job. Working in retail, I see people in their 'off-hours' on their own time--meaning they're not wearing work clothes, they're wearing casual clothes. And from what I can see, for many women especially 40ish and under, 'casual clothes' on a nice day translates as 'don't cover much'.

      <shrug> I'm not trying to diminish your feelings on the matter. But that's why the ad didn't faze me at all. I didn't see anything extreme about it. I've seen people in the store--shopping, in a public place, mind you--who make what the girls in that ad are wearing look like a suit of armor.

      "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

      by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:41:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's an issue of sponsorship (4.00)
        You know..if a local Kiwanis club goes out for lunch every Friday..and one Friday some other patron in their restaurant is scantily clad..they may comment on it, but I doubt it would change their habits.

        On the other hand if they go into their restaurant and find that all the waitresses are now wearing hot pants and halter tops, they may pick a new place to go.  (If they value the opinions of their female membership)

        Your customers wouldn't bother me.  They've nothing to do with me.  If I had to be waited on by a topless female cashier, I might go someplace else.  It would tell me you don't value MY business.  (Otherwise you'd put some strapping young man up there as well)

        Can you honestly not see the difference in the two situations?

        Clues
         

        _As I was going up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish, I wish, he'd go away._

        by Clues on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:57:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I see the distinction (4.00)
          but does one ad a titty bar make?

          I mean really, I noticed it, thought 'eh - that's off' and moved on to the diaries - I think what you are doing here is maybe the whole issue: comparing a single ad to a hooters restaurant or a titty bar doesn't acknowledge any level of distinction and by exaggerating this issue you diminish all the others.

          Same thing happened with the NARAL discussion, Kos's position was pretty much a slam of a discrete political decision which was greeted with: well he must be a misogynist then. This was completely unfair and over the top and dare I say it, shrill. It's shows a loss of perspective and I for one lost respect for some pushing it as I feel that inflating an issue is a dishonest way to forward an argument. In the same vein, there was a diary a few days back with a title to the effect that the main thrust of the Bush agenda was to control women and the title pissed me off because it discounts all sorts of other communities and issues (the environment is my main issue for example).

          I think the anger in Kos's post is a reaction against single-issue politics - a pointless and failed experiment in my book and I think his willingness to fan the flames comes from a sensibility that says: better to push out single-issue politics than allow the corrosive effects of it to persist. That doesn't make any of those single issues less important but the political reality is that we lost all three branches of government pursuing a single issue strategy. Time to try something new.

          That said, Kos clearly has something to learn here and it's probably personally helpful to him that he's being taken to the woodshed over this but that doesn't make him a misogynist and it certainly doesn't mean we should all walk out. None of us are so spiritually advanced that we aren't occasionally assholes, only thing, Kos is high profile so his assholish-ness is out there for all to see. I hope you'll agree that he is, in the last analysis, a force for good in the world.

          Jesse Jackson after one especially grievous lapse once said: "God is not done with me yet" To which I reply: "me neither" nor is Kos, call him out but give him space to come around too.

          (re-reading this I realize that not all of this is addressed to you Clues - please forgive me if it goes a bit wide of your specific comments -s )

          •  Good point (4.00)
            I was wondering if anyone would ask about that.  It IS just one ad.  It's not like the place is completely wallpapered with them, but I have reasons for treating it as though the place has been turned into a titty bar. I guess I can't trust the judgement of people who think that ad is appropriate for this community, and it disappoints me more deeply than I thought it would. Also, I guess for me it's a straw/camel thing.

            I mentioned in my post that I wrote an essay on this  subject roughly 5 years ago.  From that, maybe you can tell I've been involved in various online communities for a long long time, and have gone from place to place over the years finding great people having good thought-provoking discussions on a number of topics.  Sadly each one of those places has adopted a sort of juvenile frat-boy atmosphere due to the inclusion of this kind of content.  There's a steady attrition in these places, backfilled by newbies.  The caliber of the new people you get is very dependent on that first look at the main page.  If Kos continues to run this kind of stuff he'll get lots of people who like to look at boobies.

            In a space created for serious political discussion and teamwork, it surprises me that someone would think it appropriate to start putting up jiggly posters on the walls with text about Adolescent Fantasies being Fulfilled at Last!  

            And when someone else says they find it inappropriate as well, they are pretty well told that adolescent sex fantasies (just the female portrayal of them, mind you) are perfectly acceptable in any context and anyone who disagrees is a feminazi, a censor, a prude, has no sense of humor and should just shut the hell up.

            It was deja vu all over again.

            I did some intense mental editing from my original thought to my original post.  My original thought was more along the lines of, "For fuck's sake, isn't there one place left on the internet that isn't entirely populated by 15 year old boys?  Where, exactly DO all the adults hang out?"   So, at least in that regard, I've toned it down a bit.

            Clues  

            _As I was going up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish, I wish, he'd go away._

            by Clues on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:55:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And don't forget (none)
              shrill, over the top, overreacting....
            •  about those 15 year olds... (none)
              the answer I think is: No, They Are Everywhere, (often just lurking deep inside)

              It's a sloppy business learning to have an intelligent, coherent discourse in the middle of a wide mix of people but rewarding in it's own right. But I know I've learned a great deal 'dealing with' someone that doesn't share my basic viewpoints. I just had a knock down drag-out argument over at the Fine Homebuilding board over banning CCA pressure treated wood (which was just banned due to arsenic exposures to kids) - these guys, at least the vocal ones - think it's just a bunch of overreacting whiners who have nothing better to do than complain about phantom threats. It's hard having a conversation with this kind of mentality but I know I got a lot out of it, mostly in the form of finding my own voice against 'regular joes' who think they know better than any 40 environmentalists about how the world works.

              Back to the basic issue though, I have two thoughts, first how far are you willing to go to push the issue over 'bad consciousness' as it used to be called? What are the costs of that? Push too hard and it's back to identity politics and single issue agendas, in this discussion it's a part of the feminist agenda on trial but you could equally say this about racial equity or the environment. And secondly, something the Left has never really addressed though I think it's starting to now: male sexual desire is generally too big to be met by our (generally) limited access to sexual gratification through real relationships, hence things like pornography. My view is that being ashamed about something which is that intrinsic to what we are is just plain dumb. There's no amount of socialization that will make this go away so we'd better figure out a healthier way to relate to it. I can understand that women are often deeply threatened by any kind of objectification but I don't think trying to drive it underground serves either women or men.

              What has seemed to me the healthiest perspective is a "yes and..." approach. Celebrate each other's bodies - lord we do love looking at each other - but don't let it stop there. If you ever make it to Burningman you'll see a lot of this kind of attitude on display: I have a favorite memory of a show called "Goddess a Go-Go" both loving and respectful toward women AND a celebration of female sexuality.

              Finally, recognize that most of us aren't there yet - you're fighting biology and a thousand years of tradition and the Woman's Liberation movement only started in the 1970's. It's going to take awhile yet, even those of us who are committed intellectually to the ideals of feminism find ourselves saying and doing things that don't match those ideals, so it goes.

        •  I do see your point (none)
          and you'd find plenty 'strapping young men' in my store as well <G>.

          Here's another angle, though.

          I once worked in a retail position that was commission sales. It was at a place where the clientele was majority-male, and by a lot. I had a female co-worker who dressed remarkably like the girls in that ad all the time. I used to call her Princess Cleavage.

          She killed in sales. Kicked the crap out of people who were better salespeople--but were the wrong gender to have her, er, assets. Show some guys boobies, and they'll buy anything you want them to.

          You might've walked in there and been offended. She didn't care, though--because you weren't her target audience. And catering to her target audience was making her more money than any other salesperson in the store.

          And, before you ask, no, nobody told her to tone it down. Management drooled over her high sales numbers. She did it, however, all on her own.

          "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

          by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:16:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Analogy? (4.00)
            ChurchofBruce, I can somewhat understand the point you're trying to make, but I guess I don't think it applies.  I am not objecting to sex, or sexy clothing, or people using sex to sell things.

            Nothing that happens in your store would bother me at all.  I'm there for 20 mins tops. It is not a place where I expect to find serious discussion or group up with other people to take action on issues important to me.

            A better analogy for Dkos might be something like a private club, where someone says "Here, I've rented this space.  Everyone come in and let's talk about politics and let's organize and take some action."  So, I've been here a while, and found some of the discussion inspiring, and have helped with some organized actions.  Then I come in here one day and find soft-core porn posters on the walls.  And the boys who frequent the place say, "Hey, if you want to participate you can just....oooh boobies  shut up and put up with it you  jigglies!  whipped cream!  Mmmm! frigid controlling feminist  Dude, lookit that one!

            And I'm just wonderin...can these guys FOCUS on an issue long enough to be effective?  And how well can they participate using only one hand?

            Seriously -   It's about being appropriate for this community and this setting.  We have participation from both men and women, from young and old, and even from elected officials in this community.  Is this the right environment to run soft-core porn ads?

            Clues

            _As I was going up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish, I wish, he'd go away._

            by Clues on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:18:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I get it (none)
              It's like working at a place where the manager puts a Ridgid Tool calendar on the wall.  It's not like you haven't seen a naked woman holding a power sander before, but it just makes you feel skeeved out when you're there to work.
            •  OK, yes, (none)
              I see where you're going.

              However, besides the duelling analogies <G>, the other reason we're kind of talking at cross-purposes is this: we have a very large difference of opinion as to what constitutes 'soft-core porn'.

              You look at that ad and see 'soft-core porn' or, from your first post, a 'titty bar'. I look at it and think, 'Eh. Whatever.' I mean, everything's covered. Barely, but it's covered. Wouldn't a 'titty bar' imply actual, well, titties?

              I say that not to be crude, but I'm going to tie it into your amusing one-liner above. I'm a reasonably healthy hetero male and I fully acknowledge that I'm a 'breast man'. You wanna take jabs at my fifteen-year-old mentality peeking through, go right ahead, there's days that I'm damn guilty of it. :-) However, there is absolutely nothing in that ad that would even remotely make me consider any kind of one-hand typing. It's not sexy. It's not alluring. It's just 'eh'.

              Look, I'm no prude when it comes to soft-core porn or 'tittie bars' and I'll admit that those kind of things will more often than not make my fifteen-year-old id sit up and take notice. But I didn't even notice that ad until all the diaries popped up about it. Skimmed right by it.

              So. We're dealing from different definitions here. That's fine. I acknowledge what yours is. And, if you see that ad and see 'soft-core porn', you're right--this is an inappropriate setting.

              However, the problem is--if we have different definitions of soft-core porn, who gets to decide? Honestly, I'd defer. You think it is? Good enough for me. However, I don't own the site. It isn't my ad revenue.

              However, if Kos looked at that ad and saw what I see and not what you see, there's the problem (with the ad itself, not Kos's response, which is another issue). And I don't know how it gets solved. Kos could defer, but I'm not holding my breath, not after that rant of his.

              "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

              by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:14:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  a four (none)
              for making me laugh, I'll let you guess which line ... and I too believe in appropriate venues for displays of sexuality so your objection is making more sense to me. I guess I haven't really thought of dKos as a work environment. Actually now that I think about it, I object to all the ads so the especially tasteless ones are just more of the same, anything that tries to grab my attention annoys me.
              •  Bingo! (none)
                Can I first say how much I'm enjoying this rational discourse?

                Church -  I agree somewhat about that picture.  I think it was the words underneath that helped set that context for me.

                Storme, you asked how far I'd be willing to go to push this issue.  Exactly this far.  If I can state it properly, and if one or two people understand, and if anyone gets a laugh in the process -  well that's how far I go with it.

                Thanks for laughing and thanks for understanding.

                Clues

                _As I was going up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish, I wish, he'd go away._

                by Clues on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 03:58:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Delaware Dem ! ! ! ! (none)
    Georgia10 said, "Fuck Ohio!" Snick, snort, tee hee. You were so ahead of your time.
  •  I won't reply to the 700 plus comments... (4.00)
    so Georgia 10, I'll use your diary. I hope you were joking, by the way, when you asked Kos not to ban you; I hope it was a playful poke at him, and not truly fear based that because you express your views, and they happen to criticize him, or disagree with him, that you didn't really fear being banned.

    The ad does matter, and yes, I wonder if Kos's remarks were intended to chase away people like myself who were schooled in the feminist movement of the 60's and 70's;  I don't think it will necessarily scare away the younger women who perhaps don't have the training.

    Georgia10, in one paragraph, you say the ad does matter. But then it is just an ad. I'm not sure you can have it both ways. Women spoke up on this site concerning their feelings about the ad, and Kos reacted defensively. I wonder why. Perhaps there is a kernel of truth in what these women say. I find it hard to believe, Kos, that you can dismiss their concerns about the ad, then apologize for disparaging their education in women's studies. In their reaction to the ad, they are using their education, and reacting to something that set off alarm bells.

    In essence, by disparaging their remarks, you are setting off-limits any discussion of ads on your site that women might have concerns about. I find this anti-democratic and a form of censureship that contains an element of mean spiritedness. I'm guessing you don't fully understand the issue. You don't understand the role the advertising industry plays in the exploitation and dehumanization of women in this culture. The industry exploits men and children also, by the way, but the issue on the table right now is the image of women in the advertising industry.

    If you fully understood the issue, you might have responded differently. You would have responded differently. You might have said something like this: I understand there are women who have concern for an ad currently running on my site. This ad is part of a package that I purchased from Time Warner, and as such, I had no idea as to the contents of the ad. Given the concern and reactions of a number of women on this site, I am going to review my policy of ad purchase, in the hopes of being more sensitive to the concerns of women. I agree the ad is in bad taste, and not at all sensitive to the reality of women as complex human beings, but if we as a community could look beyond this at this time, in order to focus on the most important issues before us, such as taking back our democracy, we can continue to accomplish much together. Let me take the opportunity at this time to encourage the exploration of women's issues on this site, as there is a firm republican agenda to roll back the clock on those issues

    This whole scene is not the first time a woman, or any woman, will be the conscience of this nation.  

    •  asdf (4.00)
      I understand there are women who have concern for an ad currently running on my site. This ad is part of a package that I purchased from Time Warner, and as such, I had no idea as to the contents of the ad.

      I like your post, scorpiorising (and the others you have made over the w/e). However, just wanted to point out that, somewhere in that 700+ long thread, there is a comment from kos saying that he has turned a handful of ads down for being inappropriate: so it isn't a block purchase thing that he has no control over.

    •  my only real problem is this: (none)
      it's an ad.  since when has any piece of advertising included deference to the complex nature of human beings?  it's meant to sell something.  compared to some of the things kos could be advertising with, this ad is pretty benign.

      "Politics: The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." - Ambrose Bierce

      by lightlytoasted on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:49:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is the nature of the advertising industry... (none)
        to reduce the complex to the simple. It is also the nature of the industry to reflect stereotypes, and beliefs about gender.

        It was, and is, an opportunity to discuss these beliefs. Many objected to the fact that the ad was even brought up for discussion. That is the true problem, in my view.

  •  Kos (none)
    He's done such a great job and is a sometimes-present host that people project onto him whatever it is that that they want, both good and bad.  No person can live up to that kind of pressure, and it's always sad to see people lash out when their own private fantasies get burst.
  •  Subscriptions render the issue moot (none)
    I'm sure this has probably been broached already by numerous commenters, but I have missed the debate this week, thankfully, and will go ahead and put it forth anyway.

    Many people hate internet ads of any stripe. At DKos they can subscribe for a fee and make the ads magically go away. Anybody whining about ad content who is not willing to step up and say that DKos is worth fighting for by paying for is not offering anything useful to the debate.

    Incidentally, Bush is entertaining a pornstar at a republican function in 8 days, and I have done 2 diaries on this subject. I have yet to experience a single commenter from the so-called "women's studies" brigade (I agree, an inartful term) register their outrage at the President, which in my view would be entirely legitimate outrage. But no, Gilligan's Island with strippers prevails in the ongoing debate.

    In my opinion, it is reasonable to expect a hit among recent HS and college graduates on this site now that summer is here, and I think we can expect more blind group think in the immediate future, which after all, is very common phenomenon when large groups of people are vying for their voices to be heard.

  •  Friendly advice: (4.00)
    • Even your friends make mistakes and say dumb things. Cut them some slack.

    • What one person considers humor or harmless fun, another finds offensive. And there's nothing you can do about it.

    * Save your energy for fighting the real enemy instead of quarreling with your friends.

    * Accept apologies that are offered, and move on.

    In other words, fuck the pie ad.

    This business will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we'll be lucky to live through it.

    by Omar on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:11:58 AM PDT

    •  Omar (4.00)
      Your posts are always guiding and inspiring for me.  After checking all this out this morning I felt pretty pissed, but your post is very settling for me.  Everything that you wrote has been true in my life in the past so I will inhale, hold it two, three, four, five and exhale.  I will do that several times, and I will get on with it.
    •  American Pie (none)
      Everytime someone here says "fuck the pie ad," I can't help but think of that embarrassingly raunchy scene in the movie American Pie. Know which one I'm talking about?

      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

      by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:30:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Give Me A Break (2.66)
    This furor over the pie ad is infuriating.

    These two women in the Gilligan ad were happy being objectified as sexual objects - and they received their desired attention from the brachiating male set.

    Big damned deal.

    Similarly, women that go to the deli in makeup, a tight fitting sweater, and a skirt slit up to here, then complain about being treated as a piece of meat - give me a break. Obviously, I took your example and ran with it a bit, but if you don't want visual attention, don't provide any cues that you want that visual attention. Wear a fucking burka - I bet that clothing is real comfortable in the summertime. And don't give me any shit about how you wear makeup and attractive clothes because it makes you feel good or comfortable. Not buying it.

    If you don't like sexually charged advertising, boycott the products that use it. Come back when you are done - kinda like the war on terror, which is a fight that will NEVER end. Sex will be in the media forever, from this Gilligan ad for men to all the women that spend far too much time watching Oprah to learn about Tom and Katie (noooo, isn't about hyping their respective movies this summer - and the first women that wants rose petals on the floor of the hotel suite gets dumped in a nanosecond).

    Damn, we blow a headgasket when the right goes prudish over sex - then we go and have a breakdown over the same matter.

    This ad and Kos's response was one big damned deal.

    Move on.

    •  Is that an order, Sir? (4.00)
      Then I stand firm & will address your post.

      At this particular point the discussion's moved beyond the ad to what discussion of the ad has revealed to us about this community. The ad remains; Kos'  'Pie' comments remain as they were originally with little adjustment in light of controversy; it's now clear that Kos does, in fact, have some control over the ad content here, so my defense on his behalf during the discussions is rendered nil.

      Now, to you specifically: you clearly have only a vague idea of who precisely you're addressing. Ie, you assume that those of us taking issue with the ad's placement at the site are 'naturally' (note the quotes) behaving in a specific way in our daily lives as a matter of course -- and therefore our concerns regarding what placement of the ad here represents are patently hypocritical.

      You claim to be speaking to me, but in effect, you're speaking to a phantom woman in your head. Therefore I can't help but take your comments less than seriously.

      Kos, imho, did the same in his blanket 'Pie' statement -- and with ample opportunity to re-address his phantom audience on it, he neglected the opportunity. So, sadly to say, his sharpness of perception is diminished for me -- and both you & Kos seem to be of a piece.

      Of course -- and finally -- it says much about the issues addressed when so many of us clicked on the Pie ad in the interest of becoming 'informed' in the debate. Quite the giggle. Certainly, it's not only the women pictured in the ad who've been used for commercial gain here. (Payment, no payment, it's still exploitation.)  Figure this out & you've got a good basis for true progressive discussion.
      Which is really what we're here for, no?

      I now take my leave of the thread, regardless of permission granted. Enjoy the pie.

      •  The only order I have given this morning.... (none)
        ...is for a side of hash browns with my breakfast. Your tone in your address to me is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unkind.

        And, damned straight, I was addressing an imaginary woman in my head because I don't know you, the author of this thread, or any of the other women on this board (to my knowledge).

        At the end of the day, it's an ad - it has nothing to do with the content of the site. Nothing. And, given the vitriolic effluent (oh, let's call it for what it is, namely, spiteful - specifically manhating - shit) on the boards over the past 24 hours or so, I can only imagine the type of emails he was receiving - clearly, he was chapped, and probably deservedly so.

        I almost agreed with the author, G10, entirely, until she went off on some nonsensival tangent about being looked at as a piece of meat. Sorry, that's a complete load of crap (generally speaking). If women don't want to be "appreciated" by men, who in the fuck is buying all the cosmetics, sexy clothes, personal treatments, botox, gym memberships, etc? Generally, what women are saying is they aren't being looked at by the RIGHT man; after all, I look at a woman in "that way", and I'm leering because I'm admittedly not a great catch - but, Mr. Right drives up in a jet black 911 and looks at a woman in that way, she would be thrilled. Convince me otherwise.

        Actually, what really pisses me off in this whole episode is being told that "I can't understand" because I'm either a) not a woman or b) not a graduate of a women's studies course. I have 2 Masters Degrees and am thinking about my PhD; thus, I am surely capable of listening to a well-reasoned argument that expresses the harm done by either a) the ad or b) men looking at women. I've read NONE. Instead, it's the same old bullshit - I can't understand or my opinion is devalued because I pee upright...

        ...or I'm giving orders as opposed to expressing an opinionated suggestion.

        Give me a damned break.

    •  Having spent hours... (none)
      ...trying to find something that did not "over share" my "assets" at several major department stores last week, because I was going to a wedding, I simply ask:

      Please go to any major department store of your choosing and see if you can find some simple, but nice, clothes for any woman you know. Walmart doesn't count, because they're evil, so we're not going to buy from them.

      Once you've found something that's not too tight, that fits over the hips of actual adult women, does not expose the cleavage or the behind, please come back and let us all know where you found it, because a lot of us could use the tip.  

      I finally had to opt for circus tent style, which I found nearly as uncomfortable, psychologically, as a "T & A" special would have been, but decidedly warmer, which was important that day.

      Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.
      What is the White House Hiding?

      by mataliandy on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 11:42:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Male Experience With Being Started At (4.00)
    On Halloween in my freshman year at college, I decided to partying in the Family Kilt.

    Late in the evening I was walking down a crowded High Street across from the huge Ohio State University campus. A group of tipsy girls behind me began laughing boisterously, catcalling at me, and a couple of them flipped up the kilt several times.

    OK--College, the late 60's, shy small town boy--frankly I'm looking for this kind of thing. And these girls were drop-dead gorgeous, sorority members most likely.

    But before they went away, one of them said "How does it feel, asshole?"

    They'd never met me, they couldn't know that I was so shy in those days that a number of my lady friends told me they thought I never even looked at women. I thought to myself that this was an awfully simple problem. If I don't want a public reaction, I just don't dress that way. I figured they were just letting peer pressure draw them into dressing provocatively much of the time.

    It only took till the next morning to realize that it isn't necessarily that simple. That remark carried some serious annoyance that needed to be heard.

    Anyways, Ms. Sorority wherever you are, I've delivered your message.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:16:45 AM PDT

    •  great message (4.00)
      Anna Quindline wrote a column, probably 10 years ago now, that speculated that much of homophobia (and resistance to gays in the military) was due to the uncomfortable thought that men might be treated the same way that they treat women.
  •  ok! can I buy some space for this ad? (4.00)
    I've just started this new cable station:

    "Amos and Andy" reruns! alternating with Step 'n Fetchit movies

    These guys are FUNNEEEE!  Don't think so?  GET OVER YOURSELF!  it's just history!  And weren't they great actors?

    •  Men insisting that you look at Porn (3.00)
      Reminds me of a toddler offering passing strangers their soggy prezzel.  Amuzing at first, then very annoying.

      To Kos I would like to say that my Grandfather was the publisher of a soft porn mag called "Modern Man" As a matter of fact he had Hugh Hefner in his employ.  The path to Porn Mogul starts with including extra clevage in the ads.  A very slippery slope my dear.

  •  Seems to me (none)
    It seems to me that maybe some of us need a new place to discuss these issues.

    I am learning more and more about my Democratic Party every day!

    For Kossack women who want to talk: womenkossacks.blogspot.com.

    by NYCO on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:55:44 AM PDT

  •  men should be offended at the pie ad also (4.00)
    Why should men be offended at the pie ad? Here's my answer. The ad assumes that men do not have any control over their desires, that they are brainless, or essentially ruled by their cock. It makes them out to be sex-driven creatures that fall for cheap advertising like in the pie ad. If I were a man, I'd be offended at this ad. But I'm not a man, so I hope that those reading my post will understand where I'm coming from.

    There's also the larger issue surrounding the pie ad which is the marginalization of women's issues on this site by kos and other posters. When you marginalize women's voices in your own party by dismissing their issues as "identity politics" or inconsequential to the resurgence in progressive politics, you end up hurting the entire community. Women's issues are basic human rights. When women's voices are being heard, society benefits as a result from their advancement in birth control, education, and work-related issues.

    You can tell how progressive a country's government is by the way they pay attention to women's rights. When women attain their education, participate in the workforce, and that their voices are being heard, democracy then is able to advance with the participation of its entire citizenry instead of just one half. When you come to a progressive site like this, you begin to wonder how really progressive this is if you constantly read patronizing comments such as "Lighten up!" "Don't get your panties into a twist" and that the host has marginalized women's issues by making disparaging remarks about those who took women's studies.

    I took women's studies in college. My class was "Mothers in Law and Public Policy." We had to grapple with issues such as paternity/maternity leave, birth control rights, abortion, rights in the workplace, sexual harassment, and so forth. There was a girl who was a Republican in that class. She was initially anti-abortion but the more books she read, and the more she heard from us, she came to the conclusion that even though she personally wouldn't have an abortion, that it wasn't right to make that choice for other women. She said that it wasn't her place to do that anymore because it would be wrong to force her religious beliefs on others. Throughout the semester, she also realized that if a state restricts access to birth control, women and their families suffer as a result. I was surprised at her transformation in that class from an anti-choice/anti-condom usage to a pro-choice/pro-contraception viewpoint.

    I think everyone should take women's studies in college. We'd all be better off as a result.

    When I Was A Boy
    Dar Williams

    I won't forget when Peter Pan came to my house, took my hand
    I said I was a boy; I'm glad he didn't check.
    I learned to fly, I learned to fight
    I lived a whole life in one night
    We saved each other's lives out on the pirate's deck.
    And I remember that night
    When I'm leaving a late night with some friends
    And I hear somebody tell me it's not safe, someone should help me
    I need to find a nice man to walk me home.
    When I was a boy, I scared the pants off of my mom,
    Climbed what I could climb upon
    And I don't know how I survived,
    I guess I knew the tricks that all boys knew.
    And you can walk me home, but I was a boy, too.

    I was a kid that you would like, just a small boy on her bike
    Riding topless, yeah, I never cared who saw.
    My neighbor come outside to say, "Get your shirt,"
    I said "No way, it's the last time I'm not breaking any law."
    And now I'm in a clothing store, and the sign says less is more
    More that's tight means more to see, more for them, not more for me
    That can't help me climb a tree in ten seconds flat

    When I was a boy, see that picture? That was me
    Grass-stained shirt and dusty knees
    And I know things have gotta change,
    They got pills to sell, they've got implants to put in, they've got implants to
    remove
    But I am not forgetting
    That I was a boy too

    And like the woods where I would creep, it's a secret I can keep
    Except when I'm tired, except when I'm being caught off guard
    I've had a lonesome awful day, the conversation finds its way
    To catching fire-flies out in the backyard.
    And I tell the man I'm with about the other life I lived
    And I say now you're top gun, I have lost and you have won
    And he says, "Oh no, no, can't you see
    When I was a girl, my mom and I we always talked
    And I picked flowers everywhere that I walked.
    And I could always cry, now even when I'm alone I seldom do
    And I have lost some kindness
    But I was a girl too.
    And you were just like me, and I was just like you.

    What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

    by slinkerwink on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:01:27 AM PDT

    •  should the lesbians be offended too? (4.00)
      how bout us bisexual women?

      we should only be half way  offended?

      there are so many other things to be offended by

      i am offended by how much time i have spent reading about pie

      I wish I had a penis on the back of my head.

      by anna in philly on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:04:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't get it. (none)
      Why should men be offended at the pie ad? Here's my answer. The ad assumes that men do not have any control over their desires, that they are brainless, or essentially ruled by their cock.

      So why should we be offended again?

      hink

      •  because (none)
        I'd like to believe that men have control over their desires or else that the argument "I just couldn't help it! She was wearing a skirt! She asked for it!" used by rapists are valid.

        What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

        by slinkerwink on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:44:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey, we're just like you... (none)
          ... we're perfectly capable of looking at beautiful, erotic and even racy pictures of women without losing self-control and raping unsuspecting co-eds.

          The advertiser banks on the fact that I want to watch that, not that I'm going to give over critical decision-making to my tallywhacker.

          hink

        •  Having control of your desires... (none)
          necessitates you first acknowledge having the desires in the first place.

          Mind-over-penis doesn't work if the penis is just ignored. That's not control, it's denial.

          When a gorgeous, scantily-clad woman idles up to me in my store and bats her baby-blues at me and asks me where the shampoo is, I am fully aware that she is by no means 'asking for it'. She's asking for shampoo, not 'it'. However, that realization means nothing unless I also acknowledge that some part of me wishes she was.

          It's not the desire to overpower, or rape, or force, or anything like that. It's the desire, however ridiculous and unrealistic, that she will sidle up to you and say "Hey, big boy, wanna go fuck?" Or, slightly more realistic but barely so--that you'll glance at each other and 'sparks will fly' and you'll end up mooning at each other in aisle eight while you pretend to do work--and then you'll go somewhere and do the nasty.

          BTW, the 'sparks fly' happened to me, once--not with a customer, but with a co-worker. First day we ever worked together. ZOOM! And it was mutual. However, I still had a real marriage at that point and she was engaged, so we never did a thing about it. (Of course, now, her engagement has been broken and my marriage is all-but-deceased...but she moved out of state. Story of my life :-).) However, we did both acknowledge that it was there. We decided that it would be a bad thing at that time to act on it. However, you can't decide, "No, we can't do this" unless you first acknowledge the desire to do this.

          Wanting and doing aren't at all the same. You can acknowledge the wanting, while making a decision that doing would be a bad bad thing. And that applies in lots of situations.

          I'm not a fan of denial. I see a woman walking down street, I think "I want her." It's not gonna happen. I know that. I'm not even gonna try to make it happen. I'm actually shy around strangers. Going up to someone walking down the street and saying 'hi' aint' gonna happen. I know all this. And I'm certainly never ever gonna try to force anyone. However, I can acknowledge and accept all that but still realize "I want her." Trying to convince myself I don't want her isn't controlling my desires--it's lying to myself. That's counterproductive as all get-out.

          "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

          by ChurchofBruce on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:55:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not offended by the ad (none)
      but hey, ever since that classic scene in From Russia With Love, I've been a sucker for catfights. Although I do prefer a bit more skin, to be honest.

      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

      by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:27:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What I think is just FANTASTIC (4.00)
    (not)

    is being told that I am not really a woman because I didn't fucking agree with everyone else.  

    YES, I GET IT ABOUT THE AD!  I can see why people are offended by it.  I am not offended by it.  Does that make me less of a woman?  Apparently so.

    YES, MARKOS SAID SOMETHING STUPID!  Very, very bad choice of words.

    But I guess I'm not really a woman, because I haven't condemned Markos as a sexist pig.  No, I'm not worthy of the title of "woman".

    And you know what else I hate?

    All this fucking talk sprinkled all over the pie threads about women being glorious and sacred because they can bear children.  That makes you a real woman, apparently.  "The goddess gave us the gift of a uterus, so we could be beautiful and pregant.  A real woman has a lovely uterus!"  

    FUCK THAT.  Ok?  FUCK THAT.  Guess I'm not a REAL WOMAN because I cannot bear children, right?  Maybe it's the fault of the patriarchy that I had a hysterectomy.  Condemn me to hell because I cannot be sacred and have babies.

    CONDEMN ME TO HELL because I am married to a man, too.  Yes, a man who respects me, but OH MY GOD he has a PENIS and therefore I am tainted because I - gasp - have sex with him.  Never mind that I think women are hot too (well, some of them, and not the ones in that ad).  I am married to a man.

    Burn me at the stake, girls.  Go for it.

    Lay on the 1 ratings because I'm NOT A REAL WOMAN.  I don't have Andrea Dworkin books on my bookshelf.  Nope.  

    You know what I do have on my shelf?

    • A first edition of Madame Curie, written by her daughter, Eve Curie.  But I guess that's not acceptable.  I mean, Marie only won two Nobel Prizes (chemistry and physics), but she was married to a MAN.  Shocking.  Not a real woman.
    • Multiple quantum mechanics books.  Never mind that I understand the subject... several of the books were written by men.  Oh well.
    • Other books:  several by Naomi Wolfe, all of Anne Rule's true crime books, all of Patricia Cornwell's books, all of Nevada Barr's books...

    ... but I'm not a real woman.

    For so many reasons that the women on this site have given, I am not a real woman.

    Thanks a whole fucking hell of a lot.

    (but georgia10, your diary rocks.  I accidentally unrecommended it - sorry about that, d'oh!  You are a voice of reason.  Thank you.)

    quick someone call the girl police/ and file a report

    by Page van der Linden on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:55:04 AM PDT

    •  I understand, since (4.00)
      it's like being told we are not real Dems when we don't agree with everyone else -- at least, here, even when we agree with the party platform.  

      But I missed the post, among all these, that said women in your (our, btw) status -- marital, uterine, or otherwise -- said you are not a "real woman."  Can you cite the name of the poster?  This I gotta go see.

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

      by Cream City on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:22:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks, (none)
        I'd like to see that post too.  I didn't even know that Plutonium Page was a woman.  I didn't even think gender mattered that much here until recently.  Now it seems the only women who are welcome here are those who go along with the boys.  

        I'll say it again.  I'm not particularly offended by the ad and I probably wouldn't be offended by the video or what ever it is advertising.  I was surprised to see that particular ad here, especially the text that goes with it; and I was shocked by Kos' response.

        I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who likes the ad or doesn't care about the ad.  I do have a problem with the marginalization of the issue of women's control over their own bodies.

    •  part of being liberated (none)
      Is being free to do whatever the hell you want. Men willingly exploit themselves for money and fame all the time, just as these women are doing, and just as every reality-show "actor" ever basically has done.

      I think an important point here is that for the younger generation (say those 30 and under) we've now achieved something close to equality, practically speaking. It's not total gender equality, and it hasn't permeated everywhere, but the war for hearts and minds is basically won -- sexism is not acceptable. The remainder is mopping up the details.

      It's not a utopia, but frankly equality was never promised to be a utopia. Today men get the same shit women do. There are oiled-up shirtless men on fitness and celebrity magazines all over, you know. Does that stuff affect my body image? It certainly used to. But I got over it and now I don't give a damn. I'm happy being a well-loved husband and dad and getting to work at a job I enjoy, where I get paid to solve interesting and challenging intellectual problems every once in a while.

      Good rant, Page. FWIW I think your intelligence makes you damn sexy. :-) My wife has exposed me to and lined our bookshelves with great American writers: Hemingway, Ralph Ellison, Dave Eggers, Tony Morrison, David Leavitt, etc... which is a perfect complement to my overly geeky books from Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, Marvin Minsky, Don Norman, Fred Brooks, Sedgwick, etc.

    •  A New Club (none)
      Page, since you and I have now both had that charge levied at us (albeit in different contexts; I've stayed out of the Pie Wars and I'm happy I did), I propose a new club:

      The "We Ain't No REAL Women" Women's Club.  Our Motto could be "And Yes, We Hate Women Too Despite Our Plumbing".  Right now, there are only two of us but who knows, there may well be be more possible members identified (identified by others of course, since it was news to me that I was anti-Women, not to mention an Uncle Tom, for holding certain views) between now and when the Pie Wars ends.

      So, thank you for this rant.  I've been on the verge of it myself, albeit not because of these threads.  I admit to now trying to read and play "Catch Up" to the Pie Wars (having never read any of the "Pie" diaries until I saw a GBCW diary from someone I respect on the thread list").  

      And a HUGE thank you to Georgia10 for posting this diary.  Fox News could take a lesson from her in how to be "fair and balanced" in political discourse.

    •  btdt (4.00)
      oddly, I was in that position on the abortion/Casey issues - called, among other things, a misogynist, a Republican, a man, etc. My reaction was less eloquent than yours, but I felt the same anger.

      I don't think that everyone needs to toe a party line - this isn't the litmus test or loyalty oath group, after all.

      The bottom line for me is that I expect everyone to be treated with respect. If it's not my issue, I'm happy to simply say so and move on - I don't need to disparage the value of it in someone else's life. Nor do I have the need to question another person's motives or identity. PPage, those comments speak volumes about others - not about you.

      I have a lingering sadness from the exchanges on Theresa in PA's abortion diary. So I'm sending some warm vibes your way, and hoping that the anger and hurt passes soon.

    •  you know what I hate (none)
      pie

      what's the fucking big deal about it?
      It's only the filling that's worth eating anyway

      I'll just take my banana cream pudding, or chocolate mouse.  Leave off the boring crust.

      Thank you very much

    •  I'd ask you to make this a full-fledged diary... (none)
      if this whole mess hadn't already been beaten to death and beyond.

      Sometimes the jokes write themselves. Sometimes they run for President.

      by Sixfortyfive on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:31:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sigh. Pie diaries make me nostalgic for (none)
    Pope diaries.

    In the midst of life we are in debt, etc.

    by ablington on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:19:51 AM PDT

  •  I just think (none)
    it's a terrible waste of pie.

    mmmmm, piiiieeee.

    Why is it so hot in here, and what am I doing in this handbasket?

    by justme on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:27:46 AM PDT

  •  This whole controversy reveals divisions (4.00)
    that need to be healed, if we're going to be united.

    So to the extent of bringing up these issues, I feel this was a wildly successful weekend.

    I want the Democrats and Liberals and Progressives in general to be pro-woman, pro-man, pro-sex and pro-family. And there's no reason why that can't all happen together.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

    by jbeach on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:29:33 AM PDT

    •  We need MORE pie ads. (none)
      I love the pie ad.
      I don't get why so many hypocrites on this site are being so uppity about it.

      And I still think there are plenty of women who dig soft-core porn and to take down the ad would be disrespectful to them.

  •  My problem with the ad (none)
    is not that it objectifies women - until we live in  a perfectly enlightened utopia (read: dystopia) people will have prurient fantasies about the opposite sex.  Men get objectified plenty, too (although, no, not to the extent that women do).  I don't think it encourages rape, blah, blah, blah.  

    My problem with the ad is that it's retarded and I guess I've come to expect a bit more from this site.   I would feel the same way about seeing an ad for Jessica Simpson's new album, or WWF (WWE?) wrestling or whatever on dKos.  It's just kinda tard-tingly and a bit lame.    

  •  I like Pie (none)
    ...that is all :D
  •  If this is the last pie diary (none)
    For real, then I better get in here before the pie ship sails, huh?

    I believe I saw one Pie diary on Saturday, then (fortunately?) got sidetracked "out there" in real time.  Just had time for a couple of glimpses over the weekend.  

    And georgia, you nailed it.  Both sides of the coin as far as I am concerned.  My first reaction was kind of a combined.."Really? That silly ad is here?" coupled with "That's unfortunate, I bet people are going to be disrupted by this."

    I hope everyone knew that they were right, because they were.  And so were you, g-10.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops"...Dr Strangelove

    by Revel on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 11:17:24 AM PDT

  •  Also, it is still okay (none)
    to choose the "pie selection" in diary polls, correct? :-)

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops"...Dr Strangelove

    by Revel on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 11:18:09 AM PDT

  •  Pie is ok... (none)
    I think the best thing about Markos is the fact that he makes strong comments reflecting his opinions. Most people would probably begin to soften their tone when their blog all of a sudden gets hundreds of thousands of visitors.

    But kos keeps up the controversy (remember that abortion thing last week?), keeps the energy level high, and keeps the debate going. His opinions are his, and we debate and so forth, and good times are had by all.

    I wouldn't want the moderator of this site to be a panderer - i'd want them to be honest about how they felt. And thats what we got.

  •  What I wanna know is... (none)

    ...when they're gonna make a pie fight ad with those two yummy contenders at the French Open yesterday.  Raphael Nadal, you had me at "Arrrrrrrrrhhhhh!!"

    Jesus H. Popsicle...I take a day off and all hell breaks loose.

  •  Culture war (none)
    I'm not quite sure what side I should be on.

    The Dobson side who doesn't like the ad because it shows a bit of cleavage.

    Or the "progressive" side who doesn't like the ad because it shows a bit of cleavage.

    Can someone help me out here?  I thought holding the same views as Republicans was Republican-lite and not allowed here.

    •  for the zillionith time (none)
      it's not about the ad.. it's about Kos' offensively patriarchal and patronizing response to objections to the ad.

      Think of it this way:

      Newsweek was wrong about the Quran abuse story:  the report they were citing did not have such a story.

      But there WAS Quran abuse, even if not literally throwing one in the toilet.

      the R's are focusing on Newsweek's "error" to deflect attention from the real story.

      When you focus on the ad and not on the Kos (and others') response, you are doing the same thing

      •  I could only find Kos's response... (none)
        ..."offensively patriarchal and patronizing" if, in fact, there was something wrong with the ad.

        Either there was something substantially wrong with the ad, or Kos's response was pretty much right on, with the possible exception of the "women's studies" line which, to me, was perfectly clear what it meant, but was easy to take as stereotyping (though, I have to add, of no less extreme of a form that that engaged in by many critics of Kos's in their incredibly hypocritical attacks on his response for its "sexism" which have been, in many cases, far more sexist than anything Kos has ever written that I've seen. But then, I guess, sexism is okay, so long as it is from the proper side...)

        •  Exactly my thoughts. (none)
          I knew what Kos was trying to say. And if someone had referred to a group to which I belonged as "know-it-all computer science nerds" (or something like that), I wouldn't have been offended. Of course, that's quite possibly because it's true :-)

          And yes, the most offending part in it all was that his attackers often seemed to make assumptions based on gender in that thread.

          Anyway, it's back to talking about the Pope! No, fraud! Ok, Bolton maybe.

          •  Oh really? (4.00)
            Is there a political backlash against know-it-all computer science nerds?  I must have missed the article.  Last I heard they were among the wealthiest, most politically powerful people in the world.  

            See, I'm one of those wacko women's studies people who don't "get it"--either the reason for the ad being on this site or Kos's response to its critics.  

            I know that you hope the issue will go away, but it won't.  It will keep reappearing until there is real dialogue on this site--ideally initiated by Kos--about the fact that women's rights are sliding into the toilet.  The kinds of images and narratives created by reality shows are part and parcel of the whole denigration package.

            "I'm not interested in that same liberal claptrap. That meow, meow, meow, ironic detachment." -- Stephen Colbert

            by SneakySnu on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:05:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ok fine. (none)
              Have it your way.. but if you think that complaining about an image that is a link to a silly ad is important, you may find that people will end up not taking you seriously.

              Advertising like that has been around for a long time, it has nothing to do with anything sliding down the toilet. Except maybe used tissues.

              A stupid pie ad is a far cry from James Dobson-like attack on women's issues.

            •  And oh yeah.. (none)
              Computer science nerds aren't amongst the rich.. not since the bubble burst in 2000. A lot of them are unemployed. How dare you! They are human beings too :)
        •  asdf (none)
          So a mythical arbitrator must first decide whether a complaint has merit before the response can be evaluated?

          Doesn't work that way. You can dismiss an argument without dismissing the people making it or expressing disdain for the concerns that lead to the argument.

          I think Kos's statement was "inartful" at best. Whether or not it's something more than that remains to be seen by how (or if) he replies to diaries like this. However, some of the commentary in this diary is well deserved of the 'sexist' label, and I'd say yours gets darn close.

          •  Huh? (none)
            sexism is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

            prejudice or discrimination based on sex

            You don't agree with the comment, fine, but I don't see anything that matches that definition in there, or comes close.

          •  Nice strawman, but... (none)
            So a mythical arbitrator must first decide whether a complaint has merit before the response can be evaluated?

            No, the evaluator must, not a "mythical arbitrator". I don't know what imaginary post you pulled a mythical arbitrator from.

            You can dismiss an argument without dismissing the people making it or expressing disdain for the concerns that lead to the argument.

            I'm not really interested in whether or not that is abstractly possible; most of the particular complaints against Kos's particular comments seem to me impossible to agree with without agreeing that there is something wrong with the ad.

            I think Kos's statement was "inartful" at best.

            "Inartful" is perhaps the most useless and content-free term I've ever heard used.

            Whether or not it's something more than that remains to be seen by how (or if) he replies to diaries like this.

            I don't think future responses will change the appropriateness of the original response in any way; they may, of course, be more or less appropriate themselves, taken in context including the original response.

            However, some of the commentary in this diary is well deserved of the 'sexist' label, and I'd say yours gets darn close.

            How, specifically?

            •  the crux of it (none)
              I'm not really interested in whether or not that is abstractly possible; most of the particular complaints against Kos's particular comments seem to me impossible to agree with without agreeing that there is something wrong with the ad.

              you don't have to think there's something wrong with the ad. I remember seeing it, but I sort of don't register the graphics/ads here and it didn't make me do a double take or make any special note of it.

              However, I find the response patronizing and offensive.

              So who gets to decide, according to your rules, if something crosses a line? You've determined that there is nothing wrong with the ad, so therefore, there is nothing wrong with the response. I think there's nothing wrong with the ad, but plenty wrong with the response. And there are others who will argue that both the ad and the response are wrong.

              And whether or not the response goes beyond "inartful" (used deliberately for the very reasons you offer as a critique) depends on whether Kos can come back to it and say - you know what, there was an unintended consequence here - let me explain and here's what I learned.

              And I apologize - sexist is the wrong label. But the notion that an issue doesn't merit concern unless it triggers the right person (ergo, the mythical arbitrator, given that you've rendered those taking offense completely insignificant) is problematic.

              •  Again with the arbitrator strawman... (none)
                But the notion that an issue doesn't merit concern unless it triggers the right person (ergo, the mythical arbitrator, given that you've rendered those taking offense completely insignificant) is problematic.

                The idea exists completely in your head. I merely think that the question of the validity of the response is not independent of the evaluation of what it responds to; I've never suggested that there are separate people involved in making those evaluations.

                I'm saying that the two issues are interdependent, not that some mythical arbitrator must answer one before anyone can address the other. I'm saying that anyone who wants to address one must (implicitly or explicitly) address the other.

                •  which was done (none)
                  I could only find Kos's response... (none / 1)

                  ..."offensively patriarchal and patronizing" if, in fact, there was something wrong with the ad.

                  so you find nothing wrong with the ad, and use that determination as foundation to argue that those who DO find fault, either with the ad or with the response, are wrong.

                  No straw argument in my post, unless you set it up.

                  •  Strawmen (none)
                    so you find nothing wrong with the ad, and use that determination as foundation to argue that those who DO find fault, either with the ad or with the response, are wrong.

                    Well, yes, I do, but I don't argue that I have to believe that there is something wrong with the ad for anyone else to find error with Kos' response.

                    No straw argument in my post, unless you set it up.

                    No, your mythical arbitrator is still completely straw. I've never argued that anyone but the person making an evaluation of Kos' response has to judge the ad first, which is your repeated strawman.

                    •  you still don't seem to get it (none)
                      you say:
                      I've never argued that anyone but the person making an evaluation of Kos' response has to judge the ad first, which is your repeated strawman.

                      yet what I said, and what you quoted was:
                      so you find nothing wrong with the ad, and use that determination as foundation to argue that those who DO find fault, either with the ad or with the response, are wrong.

                      see the OR in there? I never argued that anyone has to judge the ad first. I didn't even register the fucking ad, but I certainly have evaluated the response.

                      You're the one who said that IF the ad was problematice THEN Kos' response would be also. The straw argument you claim I have set up is your own if/then scenario.

                      •  Who doesn't "get it"? (none)
                        I never argued that anyone has to judge the ad first.

                        I know you didn't. I argued that to properly evaluate the response, the evaluator had to evaluate the ad. You launched a strawman claiming that I was arguing that in order for anyone to discuss the response, an external "mythical arbitrator" had to render judgement on the ad.

                        I didn't even register the fucking ad, but I certainly have evaluated the response.

                        You're the one who said that IF the ad was problematice THEN Kos' response would be also.

                        No, actually, I didn't.

                        I said that if the ad wasn't problematic, I couldn't find a problem with Kos actual response.

                        That does not imply that if the ad was problematic, I would find a problem with Kos actual response.

                        The straw argument you claim I have set up is your own if/then scenario.

                        No, the straw argument you set up was not my own if/then scenario. It was your "mythical arbitrator" scenario.

      •  Aren't you falling into the same trap? (none)
        When you focus on the ad and not on the Kos (and others') response, you are doing the same thing

        When you focus on the three words that kos said to discredit his argument, aren't you doing the same thing?

  •  Any other guys here getting tired of (none)
    being called "sexist" by those offended by their own sexuality?

    Not to entirely excuse Markos' front-page comment, which is rather poorly worded to say the least, but the prevailence of censorship and the iron-grip on pop culture by the morality police is my number one problem with the state of the republic. It bothers me that something like this is the tipping point for anybody thinking about staying or leaving this community.

    Sometimes the jokes write themselves. Sometimes they run for President.

    by Sixfortyfive on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:26:12 PM PDT

    •  Number one problem? (none)
      "but the prevailence of censorship and the iron-grip on pop culture by the morality police is my number one problem with the state of the republic"

      More than a presdent whose election and reelection were both clouded by questions, to say the least?

      More than a president who lies to take a nation to war?

      More than the erosion of the separation of powers and the creation of a virtual one-party state?

      More than the dominance of political life by the extreme religious right?

      More than the total disregard for international law?

      More than Abu Ghraib?

      More than what this administration has done to the environment, or workplace safety, or public health?

      Your comment is, at best, "so 1990's."  At worst, it borders on trollish.

      If we trash the planet, none of the rest of this matters...

      by Dem in Knoxville on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:46:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  if you confuse the issues (none)
      sexism, sexuality, censorship, and right-wing moralizing -- then I don't think you really understand the concern, or how offensive the claim in that first sentence is.
    •  Tim Allen vs Alan Alda (none)
      It's the  self appointed arbiters of progressive orthodoxy that annoy me.  I'm neither the Tool-time guy nor Alan "no one is more sensitive than I" Alda, and NO ONE can't make me toe their damn line.  I am progressive, yes.  I am a male, and stop trying to make me apologise for it.  I do not objectify women, and I resent the attempts to suggest I do.  I will not be emasculated by a bunch of women I don't even know.  Pie fight indeed.

      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 Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:58:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dammit! (none)
        I will not be emasculated by a bunch of women I don't even know.

        Mmph, mmph, mmph.

        When you get right down to it, that's what this is really all about.

        "Sir, we've already lost the dock." A Zion Lieutenant to Commander Lock, The Matrix Revolutions

        by AuntiePeachy on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:15:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So now what? (none)
          I can't decipher your post.  Am I evil or not?

          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 Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:25:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Evil? That I can't say. (none)
            But wow...women offering their opinion that you dislike=emasculating?

            Damn.

            "Sir, we've already lost the dock." A Zion Lieutenant to Commander Lock, The Matrix Revolutions

            by AuntiePeachy on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:29:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That depends... (none)
              It seemed to me that kos' complaint was not about opinion.  If people have an opinion that the ad is X... that's ok.

              His complaint was that people felt they needed to ban the ad.

              So opinion which results in action against people in the form of censorship... yes, i would argue that can be interpreted as emasculating.  Although, I'm not sure emasculating is the right word as this isn't a male/female issue... it's more one view of feminism against another.

              •  I just don't understand (none)
                It just seems so irrational that folks are accused of "emasculating" someone else.  

                Oh no! Lorena Bobbit on a keyboard!

                I mean, seriously--just add "ball busting b----" and stir. No one is saying that you can't be turned on by something but there's a time and place for everything. And yes, a woman can call BS on a man; what's with this reaction that says your d---(general, not specific) will just shrivel up and die because of it?

                Like I said...damn. 'Cuz I really don't know what else to say.

                "Sir, we've already lost the dock." A Zion Lieutenant to Commander Lock, The Matrix Revolutions

                by AuntiePeachy on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:04:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmm... (none)
                  It just seems so irrational that folks are accused of "emasculating" someone else.  

                  Well, perhaps that is because you lack empathy or understanding for the male perspective.  

                  I'll let you in on a dirty little secret, kind of unrelated...  The men in the thread who were chiding Kos for his inappropriate language.  It's not that they actually believed that.  They just wanted to side with the women cause they thought it'd make them more appealing to the opposite sex.

                  In a sense, I think that's what the other guy meant by emasculation.  Men can no longer have their own independent opinions, if they don't repeat in lockstep the wisdom of the echo chamber, they are chided.  

                  We're still a few decades away from enlightenment.  Europe seems to be further ahead than we are, which is curious because it seemed in a way the path started in the US.

                •  Who do you think you are? (none)
                  I'm not "irrational" and I didn't say " ball busting bitch" so kindly don't put words into my mouth. Calling BS is easy enough; that's what kos did, after all. Cue the misanthropic wailing.

                  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 Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:16:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wailing? (none)
                    That's funny.

                    YOU said emasculating, not me.

                    You could have said "misunderstood" or even "villified" but you didn't. If a woman has something to say or differing opinion or says you're wrong, you no longer have a pair? Can't you simply be just wrong or right or misunderstood? A difference of opinion is not emasculating, or perhaps you and Kos have the same type of issues.

                    Then I guess I'd be wailing, too.

                    "Sir, we've already lost the dock." A Zion Lieutenant to Commander Lock, The Matrix Revolutions

                    by AuntiePeachy on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 03:09:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And who do I think I am? (none)
                      A woman with an opinion. Apparently too much for you without feeling "emasculated."

                      Oh snap--how long before you utter "uppity" too?

                      "Sir, we've already lost the dock." A Zion Lieutenant to Commander Lock, The Matrix Revolutions

                      by AuntiePeachy on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 03:15:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Sorry to break this to you Auntie (none)
                        But you don't know what I'm talking about. You can't. I'm a man. You are not. I get to decide what feels emasculating. You do not. End of story. PS I express myself as I see fit. Like it or lump it. And again, don't put words into my mouth.

                        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 Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:35:10 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  not really (none)
              i don't think he's talking about being emasculated by having women disagree with him, i think he's talking about being demasculated by people making him feel like an asshole for not agreeing with them.

              i dunno.

              alcohol and night swimming. it's a winning combination!-l.leonard

              by chopper on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 04:39:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Got it. (none)
              Oh I see now. Derision. OK, then. That's not emasculating at all. What was I thinking? Of course you get to decide how I feel. My male reaction is so squalid and distasteful. Of course it has no place in polite company.

              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 Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:11:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I am so glad (none)
    that, thus far, I have not gotten entangled in this pie ad brouhaha.  I hope this one doesn't last as long as the fraud/not-fraud brouhaha.  I can't help but wonder if lack of proper respect for others isn't part of both problems, but that's all I'm going to say for now.

    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

    by mikepridmore on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:28:51 PM PDT

  •  Collective "fun" on Kos (none)
    Wow, go on vacation for a couple of weeks and look what I come home to...

    Last time we had this much "fun" was when the pope died.

    Thanks for posting the "oil on the waters" diary so we can all try and get over it.  

    I was very saddened to see about Catnip, though... :-(

    If we trash the planet, none of the rest of this matters...

    by Dem in Knoxville on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:36:26 PM PDT

  •  What you've got to understand... (none)
    is that what the powerful elite are building here is a society of perpetual sexual frustration, and that, inevitably, boils over into violence.  It is the hopes of the powerful elite that that violence can be channelled in ways that they want.  This is why it is important to victimize women and gays first... to take away any legitimate outlet for the sexual frustration... that is why it is important for women and gays to not serve equally in the armed forces.

    And this is also tied into our work situation, with the jobs going overseas and fewer and fewer people doing more and more work with less and less time off, and getting further and further into debt.

    When this all finally blows, the force of it will be phenomenal and will destroy civil society.

    And that, my friends, is what all this reality tv crap is all about.

    Of course he's written in the Lamb's Book of Life. He's the Antagonist.

    by ultrageek on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM PDT

  •  The problem with you Georgia10... (none)
    ... is that you are all sorts of reasonable and shit like that.

    Cut that out!

    Get with the program. Yer s'posed to be pie-eyed like everyone else!

    "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

    by Andrew C White on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:37:40 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps there will be a sweaty, muscle men (none)
    ad posted at some point as a way of objectifying men.  Just the thought of it makes me.......  ummmmm

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

    by Alice Burro on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:47:51 PM PDT

  •  Pie o Pie (none)
    Reminds me of the big upheaval last fall over somebody's diary entitled

    Shut your f***g piehole

    There's something about pie.

  •  Jesus H. Freaking Christ in a Pie-Smeared Sidecar! (none)
    Put down the freaking torches and pitchforks.

    It's a stupid ad about a stupid show on a stupid network.  Said stupid show will be watched by a lot of stupid people and perhaps some slumming not-so-stupid people.  Its impact on this community would be negligible if not for this ludicrous a-Pie-calypse.

    kos' comments were perhaps ill-chosen and stereotype-inflected.  On the other hand some of the comments that I've read about them seem to fall pretty closely in line with that selfsame stereotype.  Ain't life funny that way?

    But there are a lot of folks taking this far, far too seriously and getting waaaaaaayyyyyyy too worked up (on both sides of the issue) about a stupid ad and a boneheaded choice of two words.  In other words, there are a lot of sticks up a lot of asses around here.

    ----

    Lemme ask a question to illustrate a point: do you refuse to frequent certain bookstores because they carry Playboy or Maxim in their magazine rack, even though they also carry the feminist philosophy and literature (or whatever it is you happen to read)?

    If you answered yes, then by all means beat it and head on over to the narrow single issue blogs, because this is not the place for you.  This is a big tent and we take all kinds here, as well as all issues.

    But bear this in mind: guys like Spongedob and his ilk would have no compunction about calling for a national boycott of any bookstore chain just because they happen to carry Curve or Outlook magazine.

    Quasi-Dobsonian behavior (which is what I'm seeing hints of here) is unbecoming of us.

    I think everyone (on both sides of the issue) needs to "de-stick their posterior" and get the phuque over it.

    THERE ARE SEMI-FASCISTS IN CHARGE OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND THEY ARE TRYING DESPERATELY TO DESTROY US AND THE THINGS WE STAND FOR!!!  This issue means practically nil.  Get a freaking sense of perspective.

    Can't we all just get a bong?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site