Liberals, Womens' Studies, and Kos.
June 15, 2005 4:19 AM   Subscribe

 
I thought Kos was right on in what he said, especially in later apologising for the unseemly back-hand-gesture to feminism. It was a declaration of "live and let live" regarding a smattering of the ten tonnes of ephemera landing web-side daily, wasn't it? And I think that's good thing...


...but then I am a senseless bigot.
posted by NinjaPirate at 5:04 AM on June 15, 2005


I'm confused, NinjaPirate. You're saying Kos was right in what he said, and also especially right for apoligizing for what he said. If he was right the first time, then why was the apology necessary?
posted by Karmakaze at 6:20 AM on June 15, 2005


As far as the ad itself, it's less that sort of ad in and of itself and more the ubiquity of that sort of thing that starts to get tiresome. Having a female antomy myself, images of semi-naked don't really impress me that much, and it gets tiring to have those images pressed on me from all sides. It's not that I am ashamed of female sexuality, etc, it's just a little tired to have customized-for-the-male-view images surrounding me everywhere (tv ads, banner ads, billboards by the road, magazine covers, ad nauseum). It's like having someone following me around constantly yelling, "Boobies! We've got Boobies! Hey, come on, look at my boobies! Don't you want to click on my BOOBIES!?!?!"

I tend to think of it as more symptomatic of the underlying problem of sexisim in our society than as a causal factor, but it does get awfully old.
posted by Karmakaze at 6:32 AM on June 15, 2005


Matthew,
Carol Darr and you guys fucked up with your FEC comments. I am going to do everything in my power to make sure you don't get a single netroots individual at your conference next year. Just thought I'd let you know.
Have a good day.
Markos Moulitsas
Daily Kos


After reading that letter last week, I doubt I'll ever be surprised by anything Kos says again. (Kos threads here)
posted by VulcanMike at 6:47 AM on June 15, 2005


That whole fight was ridiculously stupid. Kos was spot on with what he said, "Me, I'll focus on the important shit." You know, like military recruitment problems, a possible scandal in Ohio, the human traffic report that came out a while back, developing a sound democratic strategy, etc, etc.
posted by shawnj at 6:49 AM on June 15, 2005


I don't understand how you people can agree with Kos. He didn't have much of an argument to speak of.

He didn't say, "here's what you think, and here's what I think, and here's why my judgement with respect to placing that ad is correct."
He basically just said "piss off," which he's perfectly entitled to do, but that gives him absolutely no logical authority... there's nothing to agree with. Instead of answering people's complaints one way or the other, he's just rejecting them.

Don't you find is just a little convenient to just say, "Whatever your issue is, I'll stick to the big stuff"?
posted by frufry at 7:02 AM on June 15, 2005


shawnj: Why is it Kos who is personally in charge of deciding what's important and what is it?
posted by ITheCosmos at 7:11 AM on June 15, 2005


*yawn*

Kos was right on the money. As long as Democrats keep privileging peoples' hurt feelings over real problems like economic inequality and erosion of civil liberties, they're going to continue to get spanked in the polls. The comment about oil wrestling men in speedos was a hoot. This guy has apparently never walked through a gay neighborhood in a major U.S. city. Objectification in advertisement is the norm. I wonder how male objectification of other men fits into this idiot calculus.

We're complex creatures and we can maintain multiple, even somewhat contradictory frames of reference at a single time. Sexual desire is not some all-occluding mode that crowds out any other point of view. Nor is how one relates to pornography or erotic advertisement any sure-fire indication of how one relates to one's female colleagues or intimates. Sure, there are links, but they're too complex to be rendered in these simplistic terms. One gets the impression from this piece that there's a 1-to-1 correlation between a Budweiser ad and Lawrence Summers' remarks. Give me a break.

And closing with a quote from Cornel West reminding us all how racist we continue to be hardly proves anything. West's career is built on being a tired scold for the identity politics set. We can judge the efficacy of that approach by tracking the fortunes of the left over the last 25 years or so. Bill Clinton won on a platform of reaching across boundaries to find common ground. The only people who can imagine Cornel West in comparable position are the Wachowski brothers.
posted by felix betachat at 7:19 AM on June 15, 2005


Kos seems to have trouble understanding the difference between the feminist left and the Christian right. The funny thing is that while the little they share can be voiced similarly ("Less boobs on TV"), their radically different roots, objectives and consequences should be clear to anyone with even a passing interest in modern politics.

On preview, ITheCosmos, maybe because it is his site?
posted by nkyad at 7:22 AM on June 15, 2005


"Boobies! We've got Boobies! Hey, come on, look at my boobies! Don't you want to click on my BOOBIES!?!?!"

Boobies? Where?
posted by jonmc at 7:54 AM on June 15, 2005


Karmakaze, be confuzed no more: I agreed with his sentiments in the post, apart from the pointless dig at feminism. I especially supported his apology for it.
He was, in my pathetic hippy jive, "right on" in his message, even if he tripped on the snark in the process of delivering it.

My fault.
posted by NinjaPirate at 8:18 AM on June 15, 2005


I still think we're missing the point. This is not some women's group randomly demanding that Kos spend more time on women's issues. By all means, he should be spending his time writing and worrying about what he thinks is important.
He did choose, however, to place that ad on his site, and now he's responsible for that choice. As such he must respond to reactions to that choice. His response may be nothing at all. Fine.
He chose to respond to by declaring that he shouldn't bother to give a real response. Again... fine. But there's nothing to agree with there. He just chose to dodge the issue and hasn't taken any responsibility for his actions one way or another. We should react accordingly.
posted by frufry at 8:18 AM on June 15, 2005


He just chose to dodge the issue and hasn't taken any responsibility for his actions one way or another. We should react accordingly.

Maybe he doesn't want to help some few with a self-serving agenda to hijack a more important conversation he's hosting.

Seriously, it's not like it was a Suicide Girls ad or anything...
posted by felix betachat at 8:26 AM on June 15, 2005


MetaFilter: Whatever your issue is, I'll stick to the big stuff
posted by gurple at 8:45 AM on June 15, 2005


shawnj: Why is it Kos who is personally in charge of deciding what's important and what is it?

Because it's his site?
posted by shawnj at 8:46 AM on June 15, 2005


I think Kos misjudged his audience. If I were female as well as liberal, I don't think I'd want to see an ad for the objectification of women on my favorite political blog. And that's what this is. It's worse than a porn ad, which just wants you to click so that you can pay to see pictures of boobies. This ad wants you to click so you can see some mildly entertaining boobfest that's being used to promote some boring old TV show.

The correct action for people who don't like the ad is to stop going to Kos, and/or start promoting other blogs that don't have boobie ads. If enough people do that to hurt Kos, the correct action for Kos is to take down the ad. Advertising that offends your customers can't be good advertising.
posted by gurple at 9:12 AM on June 15, 2005


The same type arguments go on over at Mother Earth News about advertisements for ATVs or tobacco products, etc. I say sometimes you have to get your hands dirty if you want to fix the messed up plumbing of our society. That doesn't mean you like dirty hands, just that you must expose yourself to society and its attendant ills if you ever hope to change those same things. Ever change a dirty diaper?
posted by nofundy at 9:20 AM on June 15, 2005


You know what? I just don't give a fuck.

Really.

There are ads for escorts in the village voice, does that lessen the quality of the articles in it?
posted by Freen at 10:00 AM on June 15, 2005


It would be a much more compelling argument if Adblock, RIP, and Greasemonkey didn't exist, all of which allow much finer-grained control over what you see than will ever be possible with broadcast or print media.

And for people who don't or won't use those tools? Well, in the words of Kos himself, "Screw 'em."
posted by darukaru at 10:01 AM on June 15, 2005


metafilter: we've got boobies.

Seroiusly though, karmakaze, that was a great post. I have heard people express your feelings before, but not in such a funny yet affecting way!
posted by chaz at 10:27 AM on June 15, 2005


Yes. Kos is an asshole. This is news? I got banned from posting on the site and I was even more polite then I am here, and posted under my real name.

Kos is just such a shrill jackass it's unbelievable and a little disappointing that he has such a prominent position in the liberal world.

Whenever he's attacked he lashes out in the shrillest way possible. When he got called out by conservative bloggers for claming that he felt "nothing" for dead American mercenaries in Iraq he lashed out and attacked them. The way reported bad news from Iraq constantly during the run-up to the election almost made it seem like he was giddy that things were going so poorly over there. I just basing this on my own observations... pointing it out (in the most polite way possible) is probably what got me banned.

Seriously Kos is like a liberal version of Ann Coulter.

Sure, I agree liberals need to show more backbone, but that doesn't mean acting like Dios.
posted by delmoi at 10:44 AM on June 15, 2005


On the other hand, this preposterousuniverse blog fucking rocks. Examples: this linked article about Godel's theorem
posted by delmoi at 11:27 AM on June 15, 2005


To a lot of people, this kind of "soft" issue is unimportant, and detracts from the "hard" issues (e.g. equal pay for equal work) that women should be fighting for. But this soft/hard distinction isn't nearly so clear-cut as we might be tempted to believe. The reasons why women don't get equal pay for equal work ultimately come down to how men and women are perceived by the people in power who set the salaries, and these perceptions are manifestly shaped by the cultural messages that are beamed at us from every direction.

(from the linked article, for those who didn't bother to read it)

I find it depressing that Metafilter remains such a fucking boyzone, where Kos's immature rant garners more support than an articulate explanation of why so many women were bothered by the ad.

If you don't care about our opinions, fine. But don't get all high and mighty about your misogynist jackassery.
posted by damn yankee at 12:13 PM on June 15, 2005


The problem was never really the stupid pie fight ad, it was the idea that complaining about the ad was somehow petty and illegitimate

This goes to the heart of the matter. Let a woman complain about something she perceives as sexist, and she will be lambasted with responses such as:

"Christ, you feminists have no sense of humor."

"Shut up bitch. Go get laid."

"You must be on the rag."

Men are sexually stimulated by visuals, which is why the appearance of women is so important in our culture. But this creates a problem for women: the way we look is subject to change. Time is not our friend. Neither is illness, poverty, or child bearing. In fact the only thing that helps improve appearance is discipline (in diet and exercise) and money (Oprah Winfry is the best example of this.)

Therefore we have the unhappy situation where powerful women-- the prosecutor in the OJ Simpson trial springs to mind-- are being judged not on their performance but on their hair and clothing. And god forbid a 50 year old woman should have a fifty year old body. That is a sign of weakness.

Furthermore this standard of beauty becomes more rigidly codified with each passing year. A 16th century peasant girl living in a village with few healthy young women unmarked by pox had a very different standard to live up to compared to a young woman living in New York city today, bombarded as she is by advertisements, television, magazines, and movies which generate interest by using the most attractive women all with artificially-inhanced sex appeal.

So if we become frustrated by constant remainders that our value to society is solely tied up with how we look, forgive us. The women who complained thought that at Daily Kos, at least, they were contributing to a community that valued their ideas. Their mistake.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:42 PM on June 15, 2005


Kos is just such a shrill jackass it's unbelievable and a little disappointing that he has such a prominent position in the liberal world.

Once upon a time I might have felt the same way. I would've expected more from people on "my side." But politics favors the shrill and sanctimonious regardless of ideology.

Men are sexually stimulated by visuals, which is why the appearance of women is so important in our culture.


And women aren't? Maybe in different ways (they don't seem to be nearly as interested in porn, generally speaking), but women are as appearance oriented as anyone. Or are all those GQ and catalog covers featuring pretty boy actors and models just a coincidence?
posted by jonmc at 1:12 PM on June 15, 2005


all those GQ and catalog covers featuring pretty boy actors and models

are:

1. Typically conceived of and designed by men, based on their own gender-biased perception of what women find arousing

and

2. Increasingly geared toward gay men and not toward women, anyway
posted by damn yankee at 1:28 PM on June 15, 2005


Metafilter indeed... It's like the whole pie argument uprooted and ended up over here. How odd.

The pie fiasco was a lot more fun than the man-hating choice threads that were flying around last night.

Anyway, I didn't see the ad as sexist (unless you mean motivated by sex, as in intercourse) as much as I saw it as tasteless. It would be like seeing an ad for The Pink Pony Men's Lounge on the front page of the Journal-Constitution.
posted by socratic at 1:41 PM on June 15, 2005


1. Typically conceived of and designed by men, based on their own gender-biased perception of what women find arousing

Yeah, we know women are pure creatures who are only aroused by higher pursuits and don't have a superficial bone in their body. Call me when the shuttle lands.
posted by jonmc at 1:44 PM on June 15, 2005


jonmc, if anything the slick, goodlooking men of the type to appear on magazine covers are a turn-off. At the very least they make my skin crawl.

But much more important than my personal feelings is the way our society judges men on their performance rather than on their appearance. A few months ago we had a FPP on Condoleezza Rice's clothing. When was the last time the issue of a Secretary of State's attire came up?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:47 PM on June 15, 2005


if anything the slick, goodlooking men of the type to appear on magazine covers are a turn-off. At the very least they make my skin crawl.

Same here. The male idea of what women find attractive is, for the most part, what gay men actually find attactive. (I'll leave you and your secure sense of manhood to contemplate that one, Jon.)

And in truth, a lot of women are going to be more turned on by a well-written piece of erotica than by a photo of a man who is more their "type."

But I find it entirely characteristic of the pigheaded testosterone in this thread that Jon would rather spew hyperbolic sarcasm than apply a few brain cells to considering what the women here have to say.
posted by damn yankee at 2:07 PM on June 15, 2005


damn yankee, do you think it's possible that someone could support kos's running the ad or genuinely not give a damn and at the same time not be "misogynist" by your definition?

If your answer is "no", you must have allies to burn. And more's the pity.

For what it's worth, you're doing way more generalizing in this thread than any of the men commenting on it. "pigheaded testosterone"? Give me a fucking break. Can't we discuss gender issues without ad hominem attacks? If not, why not?
posted by felix betachat at 2:14 PM on June 15, 2005


jonmc, if anything the slick, goodlooking men of the type to appear on magazine covers are a turn-off. At the very least they make my skin crawl.

That's you, but Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Fabio have very good careers going, and I don't think it's just the gay male market keeping them afloat.

I'm not arguing that women don't suffer from discrimination and sexism in many ways that men don't, but to imply, as squirrel did that society's emphasis on physical beauty is some invention unique to males is a bit of a stretch.

(I'll leave you and your secure sense of manhood to contemplate that one, Jon.)

*looks at Partridge Family t-shirt I'm wearing and baby blue and pink covered book on bubblegum music on the floor*

Secure in manhood? check.

A few months ago we had a FPP on Condoleezza Rice's clothing. When was the last time the issue of a Secretary of State's attire came up?

There was the time George Schultz wore that horrible pink taffetta thing to the summit meeting but I digress. The point is this: people like to ogle pretty people, men and women alike. And it sells shit. And if that means objectifying men, too, so be it. The difference is, men would be lining up to be objectified. "Chicks are gonna ogle me and fantasize about me? and I get paid? Cool."
posted by jonmc at 2:15 PM on June 15, 2005


But Albright was such a frump!
posted by klangklangston at 2:16 PM on June 15, 2005


*looks at Partridge Family t-shirt I'm wearing and baby blue and pink covered book on bubblegum music on the floor*


Don't believe you. The boyzone demands pictures.
posted by felix betachat at 2:17 PM on June 15, 2005


Jonmc: Yeah, but when guys are ogled, it's novelty. It's not representative of a several-thousand-year-old structure of oppression.
Felix: Do you think that you could characterize women's concerns in a way that doesn't rely on a false dichotomy that excludes the fairly rational concern that they have about objectification? As women are half the population, you also must have allies to burn.
posted by klangklangston at 2:24 PM on June 15, 2005


There are ads for escorts in the village voice, does that lessen the quality of the articles in it?

I usually find that the articles in the Village Voice tend to lessen the quality of the escort ads.
posted by mullacc at 2:31 PM on June 15, 2005


Jonmc: Yeah, but when guys are ogled, it's novelty. It's not representative of a several-thousand-year-old structure of oppression.

agreed. I was merely arguing againstthe idea that looks obsession is some kind of unique male construct.


Don't believe you. The boyzone demands pictures.

It's a 2-year old pic, but I am wearing the same shirt today
posted by jonmc at 2:34 PM on June 15, 2005


Felix: Do you think that you could characterize women's concerns in a way that doesn't rely on a false dichotomy that excludes the fairly rational concern that they have about objectification?

Put it to you this way...Take a 24 year old woman trying to raise two kids by working at Wal-Mart part-time for sub-minimum wage without benefit of health insurance. Ask her if she gives a shit about what kos runs on his front page or if she'd rather that the energy at dailykos was going toward raising the minimum wage and getting insurance for her kids. Wanna take a bet on her answer?

My point is that this sort of outrage, however justified it may be, doesn't merit indulgence, given the times we live in. Only a certain sort of person who has a socio-economic safety-net most of the world would envy has the leisure time to begin foaming at the mouth over such a small issue. Unfortunately, those same people also have the implicit sense of entitlement that allows them to generalize for all womankind.

You only bother to burn your allies if you don't care about the war.
posted by felix betachat at 2:35 PM on June 15, 2005


Your hypothetical 24-year-old Wal-Mart employee probably doesn't have time to expend much energy thinking about almost anything that's been posted on the front page of Metafilter in the past week. But somehow, it's only women's concerns that get written off as the frivolous products of a class with too much "leisure time" and a sense of "entitlement."
posted by transona5 at 2:51 PM on June 15, 2005 [1 favorite]


it's only women's concerns that get written off as the frivolous products of a class with too much "leisure time" and a sense of "entitlement."

Untrue. I feel the same way about suburban dads who get pissed at waitresses.
posted by felix betachat at 2:55 PM on June 15, 2005


But somehow, it's only women's concerns that get written off as the frivolous products of a class with too much "leisure time" and a sense of "entitlement."

Another stretch. I tend for feel a little dismissive of anybody who gets lathered up about shit like beer commercials, in light of all the real crap in the world.
posted by jonmc at 3:04 PM on June 15, 2005


you know what i think? ... if you don't like how the media present women, men, reality, whatever ... turn the damned stuff off! ... really ... if it's working against our interests the surest way to hurt it is to quit feeding it

and kos might figure out that people don't necessarily want to see tv commericals on websites

i don't see any on this one ... or mine
posted by pyramid termite at 3:19 PM on June 15, 2005


It's a 2-year old pic, but I am wearing the same shirt today

Okay, you win. I thought boxers with bunnies on them showed absolute confidence in my manhood. But I see I've been beaten.

curse you jonmc!
posted by felix betachat at 3:48 PM on June 15, 2005


too bad I don't have any pics of me in my baby blue Mr. Sparkle shirt
posted by jonmc at 3:51 PM on June 15, 2005


Ah, I see. You too are disrespectful to dirt. Very butch.
posted by felix betachat at 3:53 PM on June 15, 2005


Only a certain sort of person who has a socio-economic safety-net most of the world would envy has the leisure time to ...

address the more subtle, insidious factors that underlie the plight of that 24-year-old single mom working for minimum wage at Wal-Mart.

Time = money = power, and I won't apologize for using mine to address what I consider to be a fundamental problem with the way men view women.

And to reiterate what has been said by several others here, it's not just the ad that's bothersome, it's all these men who are yet again imposing their world view on the situation. Can you possibly understand that just because you deem something to be unimportant doesn't make it so? That, in fact, when you dismiss our concerns about our own struggle for equality you reinforce the very point we're trying to make -- which is that men continue to dominate the shaping of our cultural reality, often to the detriment of women?
posted by damn yankee at 3:56 PM on June 15, 2005


address the more subtle, insidious factors that underlie the plight of that 24-year-old single mom working for minimum wage at Wal-Mart.

Oh, is that what you were doing? Sorry. With my testosterone-addled brain, it looked like you were trying to suppress a speech act based on an argument for personal privilege. My bad.

Now, if you don't mind me, I'm going to go objectify the hell out of my feminist girlfriend. We're shaping a new cultural reality together.
posted by felix betachat at 4:07 PM on June 15, 2005


A few months ago we had a FPP on Condoleezza Rice's clothing.

I'm pretty sure the universal response to what Ms. Rice was wearing - here, at least - was "who gives a shit?"
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:14 PM on June 15, 2005


Yes, Felix, that's what I was doing. Why do you and Jon need to fling piss and snark in this discussion -- can't you just argue your point on its merits?

And I haven't said one damn word about suppression of free speech. I've said that many women find the ad in question to be detrimental to a cause that is important to them; and further, that we find the assertion by some men that our concern is not valid to be both frustrating and indicative of the very problem we describe.
posted by damn yankee at 4:25 PM on June 15, 2005


can't you just argue your point on its merits?

ahem
posted by felix betachat at 4:27 PM on June 15, 2005


can't you just argue your point on its merits?

cough
posted by felix betachat at 4:29 PM on June 15, 2005


Yes, Felix, that's what I was doing. Why do you and Jon need to fling piss and snark in this discussion -- can't you just argue your point on its merits?

you're cute when you're angry.

We are arguing on the merits. We're just not telling you what you want to hear. I consider the commercial a triviality, and the left has a tendency to get bogged down in trivialities while the big things (like economic disparities between men and women, lax enforcement of domestic violence laws, lack of affordable child care) sail right past us while we look like nitpicking nitwits.

I've said that many women find the ad in question to be detrimental to a cause that is important to them;

And that makes it gospel. Look, as long as so much of feminist discourse allows men only the roles of demon opressor and repentant sinner, progress will be stymied, since few people want to ally themselves with those who see them as an enemy. How about realizing that we're all swimming in all kinds of shit and approaching people accordingly. People might actually listen.
posted by jonmc at 4:34 PM on June 15, 2005


It sounds like this Kos person is not a real leftist either. However, as jonmc said: and the left has a tendency to get bogged down in trivialities while the big things (like economic disparities between men and women, lax enforcement of domestic violence laws, lack of affordable child care) sail right past us while we look like nitpicking nitwits.

Thus jonmc gives us another example of phony "leftism". And once again I must agree: however yucky a beer commercial might be, some things are more important. Wiping out each and every sexist beer commercial will not solve any major problems; indeed, I'd say that life as we know it with all the problems we bitch about would go on exactly as before -- minus a few objectionable beer commercials. Whoop-dee-doo.
posted by davy at 4:56 PM on June 15, 2005


I'd say that life as we know it with all the problems we bitch about would go on exactly as before -- minus a few objectionable beer commercials. Whoop-dee-doo.

At last we find common ground politically, davy. Wanna drink beer and listen to old Mountain records?
posted by jonmc at 5:03 PM on June 15, 2005


Way to take something I've written and deliberately strand it out of context so you can take a whack at me, Jon.

I've said that many women find the ad in question to be detrimental to a cause that is important to them

as opposed to

"I've said that ads like that should be banned because they're sexist"

Point being that I didn't say the second, if I need to spell it out for you. If you snark back that my intent was perfectly clear, you only admit that you were twisting my words.

How about realizing that we're all swimming in all kinds of shit and approaching people accordingly. People might actually listen.

They might, but you're certainly not. Nowhere have I said that all of these "bigger" issues aren't vital; I'm only saying that for myself and for quite a few other women on this site and elsewhere, there's a connection between those big issues and this seemingly little issue. It's great that the men here are "complex creatures [who] can maintain multiple, even somewhat contradictory frames of reference at a single time" (Felix), but you can't speak for all of mankind anymore than I can speak for all of womankind.

I can only speak my mind, and support other women who share my views. And I'm not going to back down from that just because you keep trying to pervert our arguments into something they're not.
posted by damn yankee at 5:23 PM on June 15, 2005


Way to take something I've written and deliberately strand it out of context so you can take a whack at me, Jon.

I don't care enough to bother "taking a whack at you." This is quite frankly the first time you've ever appeared on my radar. But keep nurturing the persecution complex. It makes for fun reading.

I'm only saying that for myself and for quite a few other women on this site and elsewhere, there's a connection between those big issues and this seemingly little issue.

and that's where you lose people. Making it all a grand interconnected conspiracy. It's a triviality. A proper response would be "who gives a rat's ass?"

I can only speak my mind, and support other women who share my views.

They're saving a place in heaven for you.

And I'm not going to back down from that


*quakes in fear*
posted by jonmc at 5:35 PM on June 15, 2005


From the linked article:
"The ad itself generated a tiny amount of grumbling, but Kos's response set off a firestorm, as it should have."
jonmc:
Yeah, we know women are pure creatures who are only aroused by higher pursuits and don't have a superficial bone in their body. Call me when the shuttle lands.
This is non-responsive, not an argument, is, I suspect, what is being complained about.

If someone on my team has a problem with something that I think is trivial, then what is the problem in changing it? 1st amendment? (My sacred right to scream "boobies!") If someone has been oppressed they may have less tolerance for something I see every day as no big deal. "Oops, sorry." and the issue is done. Get it?

And read the linked article it is clear.
posted by pointilist at 5:36 PM on June 15, 2005


1st amendment? (My sacred right to scream "boobies!") If someone has been oppressed they may have less tolerance for something I see every day as no big deal. "Oops, sorry." and the issue is done. Get it?

I get it. And I've heard it all before. I just see things differently. Deal. And yes, my right to scream "boobies!" is sacred, as is any one's right to scream "cocks!" "assholes!" or "bile ducts!"

Believe it or not, you'd be hard pressed to find a more pro-feminist man than yours truly. My boss is female, my girlfreind makes quite a bit more money than me, and I'm cool with that. My mother worked the whole time I was growing up. My last girlfreind was a lesbian. I'm pro-choice and pro-ERA. I just think that chumming up the waters with minutia is bad all around. YMMV. But my opinions don't make me some kind of misogynist monster.
posted by jonmc at 5:43 PM on June 15, 2005


This is non-responsive,

actually, it was responsive. The claim was that men exclusively respond to visual sexual stimuli and are thus responsible for the cult of attractiveness (and as a guy who dosen't meet those standards [see linked picture] I don't like that anymore than you do). I responded by saying that Hollywood proffers plenty of unrealistic male stars whose success cannot be accounted for solely by the gay male market which is what damn yankee said.
posted by jonmc at 5:46 PM on June 15, 2005


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Jon. This has become redundant.
posted by damn yankee at 5:49 PM on June 15, 2005


I am saying that Kos was chumming up the waters with his response. As you have with much of your invective on this thread.

on preview:
Not responsive as a logical argument to this point:
1. Typically conceived of and designed by men, based on their own gender-biased perception of what women find arousing.
Notice that there is no claim was made to purity in this.
It was a response though.

Sorry I missed your credentials earlier.

It's great when men are committed to greater equality for women, but frustrating when they are convinced that they know all the answers and end up sounding patronizing and clueless, rather than sincerely listening to what actual women have to say.
posted by pointilist at 6:05 PM on June 15, 2005


It's great when men are committed to greater equality for women, but frustrating when they are convinced that they know all the answers and end up sounding patronizing and clueless, rather than sincerely listening to what actual women have to say.

If you read MeFi at all, you'd know that anyone of any race, sexuality, or gender who thinks they have all the answers to anything are my ultimate enemy.

Sorry I missed your credentials earlier.


People shouldn't have to flash credentials before being listened to. Another pet peeve of mine.
posted by jonmc at 6:13 PM on June 15, 2005


The Left Will Eat Itself
posted by VulcanMike at 6:18 PM on June 15, 2005


you're cute when you're angry.

We are arguing on the merits.


I think that sums it up.
posted by transona5 at 6:27 PM on June 15, 2005


now, who's cherry picking, transona?
posted by jonmc at 6:28 PM on June 15, 2005


Making it all a grand interconnected conspiracy.

a language or a collection of images IS a grand interconnected conspiracy ... some are better at creating them and spreading them than others

if you want to have your own, instead of someone else's, sometimes you have to speak about it

it's not enough to deal with "issues" ... perceptions matter, too
posted by pyramid termite at 6:48 PM on June 15, 2005


it's not enough to deal with "issues" ... perceptions matter, too

yes, and hand-wringing over a beer commercial adds credence to the public perception of feminists and leftists as nit-picking neurotics, whereas outrage over income disparities and domestic violence strikes a chord. See what I'm saying?
posted by jonmc at 6:56 PM on June 15, 2005


karmakaze, that's exactly how I feel. It's nice to know there are other women who feel the same way I do about overly sexualized advertising. It is boring, isn't it? I realize that ads like that are aimed at a male audience, but I often wonder if the advertisers realize they're alienating any female consumers they may have had? I've made definite decisions on what not to buy and where not to shop because commercials or posters put more emphasis on their busty, sexy female model than their product or service. Don't get me wrong, the female body is beautiful, but I see one every single day and I don't need to see that of a complete stranger's everywhere I look.
posted by fossil_human at 7:08 PM on June 15, 2005


and outrage over income disparities, for example, causes some people to percieve "whining" or "socialist propaganda" ... there's a lot of people who don't think through their perceptions ... including the perception that talking about certain things makes one a "nit-picking neurotic"

you're seeing a difference here between "important" issues and "hand wringing" issues ... what i'm seeing here is a willingness to engage issues that involve looking outward, at the things in the world ... and an unwillingness to engage issues that involve looking inward, to see how we are trained to look at the things in the world ...

some might say that's a fairly male way of seeing things ... the truth is, both kinds of issues are important
posted by pyramid termite at 7:40 PM on June 15, 2005


pyramid termite, I'm not neccessarily denying that ads like this might reinforce sexist opinions, it's just a question of priorities to me.

Complaining about ads like this gets a resounding yawn from a large segment of the population. But ask those same people "your mom works hard, should'nt she get paid as well as your dad?" well then maybe you've got their attention.
posted by jonmc at 7:46 PM on June 15, 2005


I think it's safe to say that no one is going to convince jonmc that the Sacred Cult of Boobie-Looking might have anything wrong with it.

I would say, it's not a question of fighting for the so-called "small" issues OR the "big" issues, it's a question of fighting BOTH. And the point that others have made in the linked article and I think here in the thread too, that fighting the "small" issues actually *helps* us to fight the big issues, too.

And I would say to jonmc, it's a question of respect. How are we to think you are our ally if you blow off our legitimate concerns, telling us they are trifling, a waste of time, etc?

Another point is that it is, in my knowledge, *widely* accepted as a scientific fact that men are more visually aroused than women are. To spell out clearly for the dense, this doesn't mean women aren't ever visually stimulated sexually, just they are less so (far less so) than men. (I thought everyone knew this).
posted by beth at 8:30 PM on June 15, 2005


Jon- we don't have to choose. A beer ad is a little thing and on a "progressive" blog should be no big deal to change. As to effecting social change, think about how much mileage the right gets over the gay teletubbies or what have you. They have been very effective in framing their larger issues as reasonable against this backdrop of an extreme right. The left needs a similar frame. My perception of the corporate media is you have the left-middle balanced by the far far right. With a little far far left we might bring it back into balance.

fyi- you do seem to believe you have the answers here. You are not listening to people you purport to support. Your credentials don't mean anything next to your words. I think you are fooling yourself. Sorry about that.
posted by pointilist at 8:32 PM on June 15, 2005


I have a few questions:

Is it morally wrong that I like watching porn?

If the two women in the ad were walking down the street wearing the same clothes they have in the ad and I saw them and thought "damn, those are some big tits," who would be in the wrong in that situation, me for objectifying the women, the two girls for wearing sexually provocative clothing or nobody at all?

When is it appropriate for women to be sexualized?

Seriously (as a man) I want to know what the women here think
posted by afu at 9:33 PM on June 15, 2005 [1 favorite]


I like boobies. I like looking at boobies, quite a lot, actually. But I also see where the objections are coming from. It's not about someone looking at women, or that somenone seeing them as sexualized objects once in a while, or that people who like looking at boobies are automatically misogynists or anything. It's that those ads are symptomatic of a culture that systematically reduces a woman to nothing more than her boobies, rather than making a joke about them once a while.

I don't mind the ads. I mind the culture that spawns them-- culture that has a traditionally male power structure, and since men are more visually stimulated that women it follows that a greater emphasis is placed on female physical attractiveness. This will change as things get more equal, or people won't care as much, but I don't think it's stupid to worry that things won't get more equal unless some of the attitude

I guess, it's like how people will occasionally make jokes about whether or not Cheney is hung but it is not the focus of most conversations, whereas whether or not Hillary Clinton or Eleanor Roosevelt were attractive play a much larger role in people's comments about them.

Afu, personally, I don't care when you sexualize women as long as it doesn't interfere with your ability to interact with them normally (i.e. you're not hiring one woman over another because the first has bigger boobies/prettier face/whatever for a job that isn't one with a physical attractiveness requirement).
posted by Anonymous at 11:04 PM on June 15, 2005


As to effecting social change, think about how much mileage the right gets over the gay teletubbies or what have you.

And I consider that equally as idiotic and trivial.

How are we to think you are our ally if you blow off our legitimate concerns, telling us they are trifling, a waste of time, etc?

So, unless I take every quibble, no matter how minor, as absolute gospel, then I'm the King Kleagle? Good to know. I'll make a note of it.

When is it appropriate for women to be sexualized?

Even if that question could be answered, it's pointless. Our minds and bodies are gonna sexualize what they want to sexualize whether someone deems it approriate or not. So, ladies, we're lookin' and we're thinkin', and ther ain't a damned thing you can do about it.
posted by jonmc at 6:55 AM on June 16, 2005


(I thought everyone knew this).

No, but if you saaay itt reaaaal sloooow and LOUD, we might cipher it out, your eminence.
posted by jonmc at 6:56 AM on June 16, 2005


felix: Put it to you this way...Take a 24 year old woman trying to raise two kids by working at Wal-Mart part-time for sub-minimum wage without benefit of health insurance. Ask her if she gives a shit about what kos runs on his front page or if she'd rather that the energy at dailykos was going toward raising the minimum wage and getting insurance for her kids. Wanna take a bet on her answer?

...

You only bother to burn your allies if you don't care about the war.


Isn't this just a variation of "there are children starving in China, eat your peas." I really don't buy the claim that we shouldn't worry about issue A, when issue B is more important. Especially when issue A can be dealt with (at least as far as the site is concerned) in five minutes by saying "whoops, I'm sorry. I didn't realize it would be taken that way. I'll be more careful in the future."

I'll also ask this. If we are in a "war," shouldn't Kos know better than to burn his allies by accepting money from an advertising campaign that some will find problematic, and then telling them to piss off if they talk about it?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:07 AM on June 16, 2005


Isn't this just a variation of "there are children starving in China, eat your peas." I really don't buy the claim that we shouldn't worry about issue A, when issue B is more important. Especially when issue A can be dealt with (at least as far as the site is concerned) in five minutes by saying "whoops, I'm sorry.

Sorry, I disagree. As I stated upthread, I think the issue is more fundamental than this. The left is still tied to a sort of identity politics/politics of privilege that alienates them from working class Americans. As long as Democrats are seen as the party of the shrill feminists and angry non-whites, their ability to address the working class effectively is limited. As a pro-feminist and non-racist, I think this sucks. But that's the state of the nation. Individual political correctness doesn't count for shit when you're a minority/insurgent party.

That's why I think the kos fight is a local skirmish in a larger battle to redefine the left in America. And I continue to applaud kos's decision not to give the radicals a platform. Should kos have chosen his advertising more carefully? I don't know. I suspect if it wasn't this, they'd have been up in arms about something else soon enough.
posted by felix betachat at 10:52 AM on June 16, 2005


felix: Sorry, I disagree. As I stated upthread, I think the issue is more fundamental than this. The left is still tied to a sort of identity politics/politics of privilege that alienates them from working class Americans. As long as Democrats are seen as the party of the shrill feminists and angry non-whites, their ability to address the working class effectively is limited. As a pro-feminist and non-racist, I think this sucks. But that's the state of the nation. Individual political correctness doesn't count for shit when you're a minority/insurgent party.

Why is it a zero-sum game here? Why is it that addressing working class concerns requires or demands selling out women? Especially when the cost in time and energy for not selling out women is trivial, less time than it would take for his response.I don't know of anybody else who divides the world in this way, women vs. labor. Labor vs. women. How does saying, "I'd rather not see cheesecake videos of catfights on this site" hurt workers?

Or lets put it another way, don't you think there would be a problem if Kos accepted money for advertising on the O'Reilly Factor? For Rush Limbaugh? For the American Family Association?

I think in all of those cases, the fact that Kos is engaged in a mutually beneficial exchange with something that is not consistant with his claimed values should be addressed. It is not as if he is advertising something like, Susie Bright's latest book. Instead, he is linking to an intentionally shocking advertising campaign for a show on what has always struck me as an especially conservative television network.

That's why I think the kos fight is a local skirmish in a larger battle to redefine the left in America. And I continue to applaud kos's decision not to give the radicals a platform. Should kos have chosen his advertising more carefully? I don't know. I suspect if it wasn't this, they'd have been up in arms about something else soon enough.

Well, yeah. To me it sounds as if you are part of a move to redefine "the left" away from its traditional core values of equality and tolerance towards something that is just a middle-of-the-road conservativism. There is nothing especially radical in objecting to this particular ad.

So again: If we are in a "war," shouldn't Kos know better than to burn his allies by accepting money from an advertising campaign that some will find problematic, and then telling them to piss off if they talk about it?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:30 AM on June 16, 2005


How does saying, "I'd rather not see cheesecake videos of catfights on this site" hurt workers?

By focusing on the "traditional core values of equality and tolerance" (when were these encoded in the Dem platform, btw?), the party alienates itself from its own, equally core tradition of support for workers' rights (the New Deal, 40 hr work week, livable minimum wage, Social Security, etc etc). Equality and tolerance are nice, but how do you legislate them? The party had much of the '70s and '80s to put those values into political practice. These days, I'd like to see economic equality and the dignity of the working class upheld before I get overwrought because an educated white feminist had to look at another scantily clad female body.

American workers are not idiots. But because the Democrats are beholden to "traditional core values of equality and tolerance", they kowtow to narrow interest groups while neglecting to fight hard to maintain and extend this other legacy. A fight over "cheesecake videos" is indicative of a larger set of misplaced priorities and a collective inability to decide which fights are worth having. Ken Melman and Karl Rove must love this shit.

It is a zero-sum-game because the party needs to address a vast, unaffiliated body of centrists in this country who don't give a damn about identity politics. Kirk, come on. How in hell is running a sexually suggestive ad "selling out women"? It's not as if kos is engaging in white-slavery to fund his site. The link b/w visual imagery and social behavior is (as I have repeatedly said) complex and incompletely understood. Even if it were established, what do we gain by keeping a 1"x2" ad off the front page of dailykos.com when any 15 minutes of television viewing will expose one to as much if not more shocking female skin?

This is a struggle over control. There are interest groups in the democratic party that have gotten used to being accommodated. When their "concerns are not addressed", they raise holy hell and demand public apologies. In the meantime, the party slips in the polls, workers suffer more, the country slides further into oligarchy, and enjoyment of the rule of law becomes increasingly tied to one's ability to sign a credit card receipt.

Forgive me for not caring who's pissed about Ginger and Maryann.
posted by felix betachat at 12:21 PM on June 16, 2005


felix betachat, you're my long lost brother, right?
posted by jonmc at 12:34 PM on June 16, 2005


What took you so long to figure it out? I knew back when we were tag-teaming against the atheist nutjobs in the pope thread a few months ago.

*wonders which of our mothers has some 'splainin to do*
posted by felix betachat at 1:07 PM on June 16, 2005


*wonders which of our mothers has some 'splainin to do*

Do you have unexplained red hair, and a mysterious jones for gnocchi and risotto milanese? Then it's prolly mine.
posted by jonmc at 1:33 PM on June 16, 2005


Felix: Um, you do know that the early feminists were also among the early labor organizers who got you the 40 hour work week and minimum wage?

It seems to me that you are raising "holy hell" over a trivial issue. Kos describes his site as a left-wing weblog open for community feedback. Traditionally, (and I'm counting 100 years, not 30-40), that has included a feminist and pro-feminist stance. Kos claims to be a left-wing weblog open to community input, and when you make those claims, you assume certain obligations to make your target readership feel welcome.

Well, a segment of Kos's readership didn't feel welcome about the ad. They told him about it. This isn't a big deal, holy hell, shrill or radical. I suspect that many of your "uncommitted centrists" would come to the same conclusion given the recent backlash to extremes of television programming across the political spectrum. If you really want to hit "uncommitted centrists" as a demographic, I would think that finding common ground that one can be overwhelmed by the tastelessness of contemporary television programming while not adopting puritanism.

Now, nothing more needs to be said beyond, "thank you for your comment, I'll consider it in the future." This isn't anywhere close to kowtowing. Kos didn't even have to listen to the comments. He only needed to reply politely and respectfully.

It's there that we get into holy hell land and knee deep into bullshit. Poltical groups are coalitions, as such they have different interests. Your response, and Kos's is to burn your allies, (a group that betwen 25%-50% of women identify with to some degree) and say, "your issues are trivial at the moment." Given that women still face systematic discrimination in many parts of our culture, I think those concerns are quite reasonable.

This is a bullshit excuse and you know it. People can hold both the opinions that we need health care reform, and that an intentionally shocking advertising campaign for a tasteless program on a conservative network is a poor choice for a left-wing newsblog. It is quite possible for people to both work for a living wage, and work for better views of women in mass media. These two concerns are not antagonistic, and I suspect that many of your "uncommitted centrists" would agree to both. My conservative MIL would agree that she finds this kind of ad to be tasteless, but not the living wage.

It doesn't matter that you don't care. It matters quite a bit that you want to insist that people who do care should just shut up. You can do so, but don't claim to be particularly liberal or pro-feminist while doing it.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:48 PM on June 16, 2005


Um, you do know that the early feminists were also among the early labor organizers who got you the 40 hour work week and minimum wage?

And the evangelicals helped emancipate the slaves. Big fucking deal. What have you done for me lately? Since Mary Daly, Dworkin and MacKinnon started ruling the roost, the feminist wing of the democratic party has a quite different agenda...and you know it.

It's not feminists' solidarity with workers that's driving this furor, it's their concern to control the front page (and the agenda) on a community blog whose dissatisfaction with the recent history of the Democratic Party is well attested. The disempowerment of women in society at large is not at issue, it's hyper-empowerment of idealogues within the party.

Why can't you admit this?

I agree with you. Tasteless advertising sucks and we need health care reform. I express the former attitude with my pocketbook and the latter with my politics.

How does this make me less of a liberal, or less of a pro-feminist?
posted by felix betachat at 2:06 PM on June 16, 2005


felix betachat: And the evangelicals helped emancipate the slaves. Big fucking deal. What have you done for me lately? Since Mary Daly, Dworkin and MacKinnon started ruling the roost, the feminist wing of the democratic party has a quite different agenda...and you know it.

Wow. Just Wow. You just pulled the names of three of the most contraversial women in late 20th century feminism, women that feminists argue and disagree about, and then make the claim that these people are "ruling the roost?"

Just, wow. Well as a few examples: Hillary Clinton's increased role in the White House followed by her Senate seat and some serious consideration of a presidential campaign. Increased gains of women in social sciences and to a lesser degree, biological sciences. Increased visibilty of women as sports figures and increased access to youth and amatuer sports. Unprecidented numbers of women in the last two presidential cabinents. Increased numbers of women in support positions in the U.S. military. More companies with liberal family leave and child care.

It's not feminists' solidarity with workers that's driving this furor, it's their concern to control the front page (and the agenda) on a community blog whose dissatisfaction with the recent history of the Democratic Party is well attested. The disempowerment of women in society at large is not at issue, it's hyper-empowerment of idealogues within the party.

Why can't you admit this?


Well, again. I think the furor would have been nonexistent with a simple politic "thank you for your comment, I'll think about it." Why can't you admit this?

How does this make me less of a liberal, or less of a pro-feminist?

Scapegoating feminism for the Republican presidency, and saying that simply objecting to a bad ad harms workers strikes me as anti-feminist.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:04 PM on June 16, 2005


Hillary Clinton's increased role in the White House followed by her Senate seat and some serious consideration of a presidential campaign.

When Hillary runs for the presidency, I personally guarantee you that the word "feminist" will be as far from her lips as you can imagine. In that prediction lies my entire point.

Kos shouldn't apologize because he doesn't feel he did anything wrong. If certain feminists disagree, they should frequent and support other communities. It'll all work out in the wash.

saying that simply objecting to a bad ad harms workers

I described this as a skirmish in a larger battle...abandon all sense of proportionality in your own thoughts if you'd like, but please don't subject my statements to the same distortion.
posted by felix betachat at 3:14 PM on June 16, 2005


Ok, to burst in late to this thread, I think both sides are wrong! Ha! (Ok, I think that Kos, some of his defenders, and the people complaining about the ad are wrong. I actually think it's counterproductive and divisive in this case to think about sides.)

First off, I agree that this ad is not that big of a deal, and that identity politics can do more harm than good, especially since people can become blinkered and begin to think that their experiences are representative of a group. In general, I do question the priorities of those who become really upset by such things.

That being said, it's not really my place to judge people's reactions to things. I can disagree vehemently with them, but fundamentally, it's not like I'm any more rational in all of my perceptions.

If I were in Kos' position, I think I either would say, "Well, I don't think it's sexist, (and heres why,) and maybe you should reexamine your priorities in this matter, but I respect your concern, and as gesture in good faith, I'll remove it," or "Well, I don't think it's sexist, (and heres why,) and maybe you should reexamine your priorities, but I respect your concerns. However, since I need money to run this site, and this ad does not violate my principles, it's staying. "

Both 'sides', as it were, need to reconsider if they really think ideological purity in this matter is a necessary break point. Part of the problem, as I see it, with the opposition to the Bush administration and its policies, (or 'leftists' in general,) is that people often see the need to freak out every time an otherwise allied person disagrees with them about one thing or another. Here we have "Pie-fighting, wrestling women? Misogynistic, blinkered, sexist pig!" and "You fascists hate freedom of speech, women's sexuality, and are as bad as Dobson!" I think both of these types are burning their allies. Obviously, there are going to be people who have superficially similar ideologies, but you do not consider them allies, because your ideologies are so far apart, (in my case, Catherine MacKinnnon and ANSWER are examples,) but usually, these are differences are fairly apparent, and not something that simply arises over one particular issue.

You might disagree with your allies, sometimes angrily, over things either of you may consider of great importance, but generally, I think it's better to find more common ground with people then to put a great deal of emphasis on make-or-break issues, especially issues with only one item (one ad, one complaint abut the ad, etc.) I think the 'left' as had a great deal of difficulty with make-or-break issues, which is why their having such a poor political showing, despite the immense weaknesses of the people currently in power.
posted by Snyder at 4:08 PM on June 16, 2005


felix: When Hillary runs for the presidency, I personally guarantee you that the word "feminist" will be as far from her lips as you can imagine. In that prediction lies my entire point.

Well, I think that's really interesting. When I was a kid, the best women can shoot for was a vice-presidental nomination. HRC's success (that isn't to say that I particularly like her) is an incredible example of feminism in action, but conservatives manage to frame the issue as shill haridans such as Dworkin "ruling the roost." You might as well just drop the posturing, and start using phrases like "feminazi." Anti-feminists make Daily, Dworkin and MacKinnon to be much more influential than they actually are.

Congratulations, you've been framed.

Kos shouldn't apologize because he doesn't feel he did anything wrong.

If you would actually bother to read, I didn't say he should apologize. There is nothing in the way of an apology in, "thank you for your comments."

If certain feminists disagree, they should frequent and support other communities. It'll all work out in the wash.

Actually, it's really interesting in that your comments on this confirm one of my suspicions regarding people who drop things like "political correctness." Your complaint really seems to be that feminists should not talk about advertising campaigns that concern them, but should just follow your speech code.

It's really interesting. The letters to the editor for Linux Journal this month have responses from people complaining about previous cover art. The cover story involved the use of scribus by a Mid-Eastern dance troupe ("belly dance") and had a stock photo of one of their dancers on the cover.

It's the nature of the business. If you do something that ticks people off in a print publication, they will write about it. Now isn't one of the primary claimed advantages of blogs over MSM increased opportunities for reader comment and participation? You can't have it both ways. You can't run a site on which you attract reader comment, and then complain when those readers don't like your choice of some particularly tasteless advertising funds.

I described this as a skirmish in a larger battle...abandon all sense of proportionality in your own thoughts if you'd like, but please don't subject my statements to the same distortion.

Certainly, and in the end you still have not answered the big question: Why is it acceptable to burn your allies by insisting that they shouldn't complain about something that concerns them?

So I'll ask you, who benefits from framing feminists as a group of shill harpies? It certainly is not the Democratic party, or the workers, or the women involved.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:39 PM on June 16, 2005


Snyder: If I were in Kos' position, I think I either would say, "Well, I don't think it's sexist, (and heres why,) and maybe you should reexamine your priorities in this matter, but I respect your concern, and as gesture in good faith, I'll remove it," or "Well, I don't think it's sexist, (and heres why,) and maybe you should reexamine your priorities, but I respect your concerns. However, since I need money to run this site, and this ad does not violate my principles, it's staying. "

Both 'sides', as it were, need to reconsider if they really think ideological purity in this matter is a necessary break point. Part of the problem, as I see it, with the opposition to the Bush administration and its policies, (or 'leftists' in general,) is that people often see the need to freak out every time an otherwise allied person disagrees with them about one thing or another.


*sigh*

As I've said, it's not about ideological purity, or an apology. It's about saying something like, "I disagree on this particular instance, but I respect your opinion."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:42 PM on June 16, 2005


Oh, I don't disagree with you. That's part of what I'm trying to say, the other part is that there are ideologues and over-reactions on both 'sides.' I should clarify though, and should've mentioned in my earlier comment, that I'm mostly talking about the comments on DailyKos. and less so about the ones here.
posted by Snyder at 3:01 AM on June 17, 2005


« Older ...I don't trust you, so why should you trust me?   |   Wheelsurfer Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments