For those who don't look at dailykos

[cally]

They've had a major dustup over feminism on their site. Many feminists have left the site in anger. I spent some time last night reading the threads. All I can say is that we have much work to do in the progressive community. It is all too reminiscent of some of the battles on DU. (I rarely post on Kos so I was not involved in any of this. Reading the flame wars was enough to make me very depressed.)

Kos posted a thread yesterday that was the final straw for many of the women who left the site. Some of the women created a site that summarizes their issues. To be fair, Kos has another post today on the controversy where he apologises. Links below:
WomenKossacks:

http://womenkossacks.blogspot.com/

Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/6/1125/10793

Thanks for our feminists forum group

[efhmc]

1. Somehow I am never surprised at the underpinnings of prejudice

against women, even when a site is deemed progressive.

[Finder]

2. Boy, it never ends...

I am curious how censorship and dictating morality became part of being a feminist. This is causing a lot of probs it seems. I didn't like his comment about the "women's studies" group since the ones that appeared to have left are not from that camp.

They had some great points on the blog regarding coalitions though and hopefully that doesn't get ignored because of the emotional issue.

[OzarkDem]

3. Good grief

I didn't read it all, but read most of the thread and I have to agree. Most liberal men are good when it comes to understanding women's issues, but not all.

One of my more eye-opening experiences when I became politically active in the early 90's was sexist attitudes from some (and I will say "some") Dem men when it came to women's issues. They tend to want to choose our priorities for us in the public policy and political arena, delegating women's issues to reproductive health, child rearing, senior citizens and education. Things can get touchy when discussing sexual exploitation of women, porn, and issues like equal pay and affirmative action.

But they are much better today than 20 or 30 years ago and certainly an improvement over conservative men.

Its probably a good idea to help educate some of them. Its also a good idea to remind young women of today how much hard work was involved in raising the status of women in the economy and the workplace just in the last 20 years and how easily those gains can be eroded or lost.

On edit: Its also counterproductive for Dem women to restrict the range of women's issues, particularly only to reproductive health and GLBT. There are many, many other issues out there affecting women for better or worse and we do ourselves a grave injustice if we marginalize them.

[cally]

4. I think it's much worse in the progressive communities than

it was 25 years ago. I lived in Berkeley, Boston, and DC and it was almost unheard of for anyone to dismiss women's issues as unimportant as so many do now. The backlash against feminists surprises me.

I agree that we can not limit the range of issues. I also think that issues like slavery, reproductive rights, and childcare have to be seen as cultural issues and not just as women's issues.

[geniph]

30. I tend to even bristle at the term "women's issues"

to me, the economy is a woman's issue. Transportation is a woman's issue. Health care. Jobs. National security.

They're men's issues, too. In fact, they're "citizen's issues."

I know more women than men are concerned with childcare, but relegating childcare to a "woman's issue" makes men more dismissive of it. Men have a role, albeit again a smaller one, in reproductive rights as well - it affects men too when contraception or abortion are unfairly limited.

I don't hear people talking about "men's issues" much - so until I do, I'll bristle at the term "women's issues." It's dismissive, in my opinion - it means "those second tier things we don't feel are really SERIOUS like getting to play with tanks and bombs."

[Eloriel]

5. What an arrogant male chauvinist pig -- I'm shocked

Pie fight ad
by kos
Sun Jun 5th, 2005 at 22:01:25 PDT

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

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

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

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

Me, I'll focus on the important shit.

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

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


Okay, ladies. Let's see if we can identify all the standard Patriarchal Defense techniques (which have been employed against us whenever we've raised OUR issues, probably throughout all of history) he used in his little whiney rant:

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

Uh, yeah. You bet it is, you jerk.

2. Trivialization:
Some people find such content offensive. Some people find it arousing. Some people find it funny. To each his or her own.

3. Dismissiveness:
Whatever. Feel free to be offended.

4. Shaming (a la "Whatsamatter, honey, cantcha take a joke?") and arrogant Put down:
I find such humorless, knee-jerk reactions, to be tedious at best, sanctimonious and arrogant at worst.

Wait a minute. This IS "Whatsamatter, honey, cantcha take a joke?" -- but with a sneer instead of a faux good-natured boyish or drunken grin. There's a little intimidation in his version. It's also trivializing and dismissive in tone and denotative meaning: aren't there bigger issues to be concerned about is really implied. And he's just frankly annoyed by our petty concerns.

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

Equating it to mere pop culture rather than something (institutionalized sexism) which tangibly and demonstrably affects women's LIVES, including living and dying.

6. Huffing and Puffing and Being Boss Again:
And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site.

Thus putting ALL women who were concerned in their sad and sorry little places. So THERE! Take THAT! (God, he begins to remind me of an abuser.)

7. More of Reasserting One Man's Proper Place in the Universe (threatening here to end the relationship) along with his favorite, Dismissiveness and Trivialization:
Feel free to be offended. Feel free to claim that I'm somehow abandoning "progressive principles" by running the ad. It's a free country. Feel free to storm off in a huff. Other deserving bloggers could use the patronage.

8. And even more of the trivialization and dismissiveness, drawn to a very fine point:
Me, I'll focus on the important shit.

See, girls? YOU MEAN NOTHING. Your concerns are nothing. There are REAL PEOPLE out there who have REAL ISSUES, and none of them are women.

THIS is not an "educable male," which is my term for men who may not be full-fledged feminists but are at least willing and interested to learn more and be supportive. That's the least I require of my circle of friends and acquaintances. if they've given me any indication they're not at least "educable," I spend very, very little time with them -- no more than absolutely required. Fortunately, my husband, son (of course) and brother all qualify. :bounce:

THIS "not educable male" is, instead, fully entrenched in his sexist ways -- addicted to certain sexist attitudes and behaviors -- and absolutely unwilling to give up any more of them than he already (thinks he) has.

[beam me up scottie]

6. THANK YOU.

That was my take exactly but you are much better at breaking it down so that I do not feel so helpless in my rage.

Okay, true story:

Worked for a small business, about 120 people, who had a charity committee that would schedule events during the year to raise money for local charities, car washes, flea markets etc.

The last year I worked for them, someone had the bright idea to hold mud wrestling contests and charge the audience.

Cool huh?

Except they only asked me and 3 other women to wrestle.

In bikinis.

Seems they asked the employees (over 80% male) which of us they would be willing to fork over money to watch.

I told them I would be happy to perform as soon as all of the owners would don similar clothing and join me.

They couldn't understand why I had a problem with raising money for charity and made it sound like I was responsible for depriving poor starving orphans by not participating.
:mad:

[FizzFuzz]

10. and did they ask all African-American employees to have watermelon eating

contests, and the white people could bet on them?

They DIDN"T?? Geee, why not?

[beam me up scottie]

11. Snort!

Gee, why do women take things so PERSONALLY???
If they only knew...

[October]

8. Good post

I found his comments/attitude to be quite offensive. Talk about arrogant.

His getting his "jollies" from the pie girls obviously trumps all.

And his usage of "some people" smacks of FOX NEWS.

What a sanctimonious twit.

Whoever started this group -- THANK YOU.

[FizzFuzz]

9. and this Uneducable male holds a place OF HIGH ESTEEM

in the progressive community.

A man whose underlying personal reference point is:

"See, girls? YOU MEAN NOTHING. Your concerns are nothing. There are REAL PEOPLE out there who have REAL ISSUES, and none of them are women."

has a direct line to the ears (eyes) of dems/libs/progressives at this point.

This is something that needs to be addressed.

What prevents our voice from being heard? (Well, we generally don't punch out the people who dis us; so that attention getter is out.)

In the past, there have been very few women who had any social power, outside of sexual "power", which I don't consider actual power at all. I'm talking about the power of leadership, I guess. Or political power, or big money.

Now, however, there does seem to be a growing number of strong women who are taking a lead by demonstrating integrity and leadership. It seems to me that by and large, women of power have tended to avoid speaking specifically about the culture's trivialization of women.

I keep thinking that one of the possible angles on this problem would be to encourage women leaders to address the problem directly.

There are other angles too; another personal issue for me is the media. People get alot of their most unconscious formations from imagery/messages embedded in media. And that is where we see nothing but sexualized females, women who have very little personal story or dignity attached to them other than sex kitten, ultra-sexy professional (lawer, nuclear scientist, secret agent, whatever), or melodramatic victim. Or, domestic servant. Or attractive but dead body. REally, it seems like there are very few concepts about women in the public mind other than these shallow archetypes.

We need more women in media who will insist on introducing more varied views of women.

[Misunderestimator]

16. WTF?!? It was Kos who wrote that?

Well, damn... Have to say, I'm glad I've never spent a whole lot of time there.

[redqueen]

19. Bra-fucking-vo.

Thanks for clearly outlining each and every slimy disgusting chauvinist pig ploy he pulled there.

:applause:

[Chovexani]

21. Oh no he didn't!

I've never really spent much time at Kos, I usually only go when there was something on there mentioned on Janeane Garofalo's show and I wanted to get more info. I'll never go there again now.

What an obnoxious, sanctimonious asshole. He sounds just like my so-called "enlightened" Libertarian ex. These are men who may spout the right platitudes on given occasions but when it comes down to it they really have no respect for women. That dismissive attitude is something that really infuriates me, and it speaks far more to me about how they really feel. I mean, if I say something that offends someone, I don't tell them that it's just in their heads and they need to get over it, and worry about "important" things (read: issues that don't take me out of my prejudiced comfort zone). I ask them to educate me, and respect their feelings. Because, you know, I try to respect my fellow humans.

I'm with you Eloriel, I don't even make time for men who don't even want to try. We can't afford to give quarter to unrepentant misogynists, even those who supposedly are on our side politically.

[countryjake]

33. Thank you for showing it here!

I've long thought that opinions at that site often made a sickly trivialization of most issues which concerned equality for women and I had long ago given up being insulted by such dismissive attitudes concerning the blatant oppression and subjugation of females in our modern society...ha...wouldn't even lower myself to go there to view the commercial or click on Kos at all, to see what all the fuss was about, but managed to get a very clear impression of the struggle from the posts you've made here.

I did happen to catch that pie parody somewhere, (must have been on tv), and my opinion of the commercial was the same as my opinion was of Gilligan's Island in the first place, way back when that demeaning crap was considered standard evening family viewing. Portraying people as idiotic, one-dimensional, cardboard-emotional, non-logical human beings simply gives us "one fucking thing after another", promotes twisted stereotypes, and furthers the attitude that any person, male or female, should be nicely slammed into the "slots" that exist to destroy the diversity of humanity. It was personally offensive to me and reinforces my opinion that everything we struggled against decades ago is insidiously making a comeback under the moniker of "positive expression" of our "sexual freedoms". Freedom to me means not having to view the chains of women's oppression paraded gleefully on nightly television, aside from, perhaps, the occasional documentary picking apart the exploitation of our tits and asses!

[October]

7. Wow, that was rude

I didn't know Kos was such an ass.

[beam me up scottie]

12. No, neither did I.

Amazing what lies beneath, eh?

[FizzFuzz]

13. some fucking apology . HE is the sanctimonious one, not women

who have some dignity to protect. White actors in blackface, laughing heartily at black people is seen clearly now as the humiliation it is, but humiliating women is still a man's right. A right he will refuse to be sorry for, and will thump his chest over, to affirm his broad ( ! ) point.

That was no apology. He was sanctimoniously protecting his standing among progressives, while simultaneously repeating his bias. The only amend he made was to retract his insults aimed at students who take a women's studies course. People who take Women's Studies seriously, as an investigation into the history, politics, sociology and cultural anthropology of the phenomenon called sexism are, he makes clear, still included in the category called "people that have, in fact, pissed me off".

[cally]

14. Totally agree

that was not an apology! Kos has a history dismissing women's issues. He's indicated that one reason for Dems loss is the the choice position of the Dems. Basically, women should STFU and let just vote for the partyline. It's why I rarely look at the site and rarely post there.

I brought this up here because it shows the problems in the blogosphere. Too many women are being dismissed and condescended to. I think it's sad that women felt they had to leave a Dem site because of sexism.

[FizzFuzz]

15. I've never really checked Kos, cuz I spend all my time DUing

my computer addiction is bad enough, I don't need to add more enticements. Heh heh

But seriously, I was thinking this AM a bit, about trying to focus on solutions. Not always easy, but we can always remind each other.

Daisaku Ikeda, a Buddhist teacher I study has been repeatedly emphasizing lately the importance of women, and reminding men that they must respect and listen to women. No arrogant dismissing what women bring to the movement for peace. He has been expressly exhorting women to fulfill their potential, to realize their mission for peace and that any nation that fails to respect women is doomed to decline. He notes that historically, women have always been at the forefront of peace movements and are critical participants in bringing about wise and compassionate society. (I get a kick out of this too, because he is a 77 year old Japanese man. He also teaches GLBT Buddhists that they have infinite potential, equal to any other human being, and encourages them to use the sufferings they have historically been subject to, as a springboard for their growth, happiness and contribution to society. This is the same encouragement he gives to EVERY Buddhist member. No divisiveness or devaluation or attenuation.

I love seeing this little old Japanese man GET what so many other people, leaders in religion, society or politics, or just regular folks, can't seem to understand.)


So, here we are at the foremost Dem think tank, with an opportunity to do some work together.

:D

[Ripley]

17. It's getting harder to focus on solutions when we have to fight so many

fronts. Not only the knuckle-dragging neocons, conservatives, religious zealots, self-hating women, sell-out women, now it seems Liberal men too. Not that they were all on board anyway. :eyes:

What the hell is it with these guys that they get so defensive when it comes to sexism, yet they would never think of speaking that way to blacks about obvious racism?

I think things are getting worse and if we can't even trust our friends, how can we make progress?

[Eloriel]

26. I'll tell you EXACTLY what it is

And I think I already mentioned it, but I'll elaborate a tiny bit.

What the hell is it with these guys that they get so defensive when it comes to sexism, yet they would never think of speaking that way to blacks about obvious racism?

They are absolutely, totally unwilling to give up their personal position of privilege re women -- the innate and inherent ability of any and all men to oogle women, and in all other ways be superior to women.

I just realized that I think I've got an article saved that does a far better job of explaining it than I can -- I can't post the entire article (of course), but I'll post a few of the excerpts I thought were incredibly apt -- not quite as virulently as for the men on the right, but there's far too much of it on our side as well, IMO. I'll highlight the primary thought I think applies here. I'm sure the irony that this article is primarily about conservative men but yet has relevence re our brothers on the left isn't lost on anyone here:


Stephen J. Ducat Dissects "Anxious Masculinity," Making Sense of America's Strutting, in a Psychoanalytic Kind of Way
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/03/int05011.html
discussed here:
Ducat connects Gannon, Arnold and Hyper Masculinity
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3206161


Quote:
Part of the reason is that this type of masculinity is defined largely in terms of domination. The problem is that domination--either in a personal or a global context---can never be a permanent condition. It’s a relational state. It’s dependent on having somebody in a subordinate position. That means you could be manly today, but you’re not going to be manly tomorrow unless you’ve got somebody to push around and control, whether that is an abused wife or another country. So this kind of masculinity is really brittle.

Quote:
Real men, you know, don’t worry about the losers in the new global Darwinian economy.

Quote re Grover Norquist:
For many Republicans, collaboration raises enormous femiphobic anxieties, even if they’re collaborating--and perhaps especially if they’re collaborating--with Democrats. GOP strategist Grover Norquist once said that bipartisanship is another name for date rape. So that tells you about his anxiety, I think.

Quote:
BuzzFlash: To cooperate, then, is to give up one’s masculine prerogative to assert oneself as a male leader?

Stephen J. Ducat: Absolutely. In the world they live in, you’re either a top or a bottom. Mutuality, democracy, equality--that makes no sense to them.

Quote:
There is no greater power than the power to define. If you can determine how people use language, you really are able to determine how they think.

===============

Obviously, this last quote is why I have fought so long on DU to get the terms bitch and whore excluded from "acceptable" dialog. I didn't even realize it, Tinoire had to point it out to me, but when they issued the revised guidelines, what I and so many others lobbied for (and stop donating over), finally came to fruition. From the new DU rules:

While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "bitch," "cunt," "whore," "slut," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. One common exception is the use of the phrase "media whore," which is permitted.

So, Sisters, don't hesitate to alert on this bullshit, will ya? Takes lotsa eyes to keep DU clean and relatively free from anti-woman sentiement.

[beam me up scottie]

27. I just posted excerpt from his interview

with Buzzflash a couple of weeks ago in the Women's Forum !!!

His insight is incredible !!!

Did you read his book? I was wondering if the rest of it was as accurate.
I'm too broke to order it and red state libraries certainly won't carry it.


As far as illegal terms, are posters allowed to call someone a "prick"?

[Ripley]

28. Isn't it ironic how the term PC is popping up all over the place?

The feminist threads (and Group) have brought out the freeps of course, and the long-term DU trolls...but it has also brought out the ignorance of supposed liberal men.

I keep seeing posts where women call them on their sexist shit, and they cry "PC police!" I also keep seeing innocent questions by males. I'm so cynical I think they're all trolls or under 15 years old.

But I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that these guys have deep-rooted misconceptions about what feminists are and what they want. Afterall our education system doesn't address it. The mass culture of music, movies, video games and celebrity-fetishism doesn't address it. Outspoken feminist women are nowhere to be seen or heard unless you really search them out.

And of course the fact that they have enabling Moms, girlfriends and wives. :grr:

[Chovexani]

20. What a wise old man!

Does he have any writings at all?

[FizzFuzz]

22. yes, many!

The guidance I was refering to specifically is from his message to a GLBT retreat that I read in the World Tribune (the weekly newpaper of Soka Gakkai Buddhist practice--he is president of the Soka Gakkai Buddhist organization), but he has a number of books out, many on Amazon.com

If you want, I can find the issue of World Trib. and quote you some of that cool stuff. :D

Here are a few titles:

Planetary Citizenship: Your Values, Beliefs and Actions Can Shape A Sustainable World -- by Daisaku Ikeda, Hazel Henderson. I want to check this one out; I read about Hazel Henderson, and am really impressed-----> " Dr. Hazel Henderson is a world renowned futurist, evolutionary economist, a worldwide syndicated columnist, consultant on sustainable development, and author of Beyond Globalization, and seven other books. Her editorials appear in 27 languages and more than 400 newspapers syndicated by InterPress Service, Rome, New York, and Washington DC. Her articles have appeared in over 250 journals, including (in USA) Harvard Business Review, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and Challenge, Mainichi (Japan), El Diario (Venezuela), World Economic Herald (China), LeMonde Diplomatique (France) and Australian Financial Review." http://www.hazelhenderson.com/

Moral Lessons of the Twentieth Century : Gorbachev and Ikeda on Buddhism and Communism -- by Daisaku Ikeda, Mikhail Gorbachev; Hardcover. This looks great, I am very intrigued, but very expensive rightnow. Paperback hasn't been released yet.

One by One: The World is Yours to Change
by Daisaku Ikeda

I have a few books but the ones I have are more specific to Nichiren Buddhism. The ones I mentioned above are more "general interest".

:hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

24. "any nation that fails to respect women is doomed to decline."

It has ever been thus.

[redqueen]

18. Sickening.

If Kos wants to sleazify his site, that's his right... but for him to trash the people that call him on the sleaze is utter bullshit.

I used to be surprised that liberal men could be sexists, but not anymore. The threads about the 16 year old who was gang raped on camera, and the one attacker who faced a trial was acquitted... all the knuckledraggers came out for that one.

:puke:

[Hello_Kitty]

23. Oh god that thread disgusted me

The way they trashed the girl and excused the boys. Kinda like the jury did, surprise surprise :sarcasm:

[libodem]

25. I think feminism is a hot issue

it inspires a lot of passion. This has been good for me because it ignites questions within myself about what I stand for and why. What makes it so hot? Why the hatred, fear, embarrassment, denial, contempt, provocative, whatever distrust and revulsion it inspires, Why? Because of women Freethinkers. Secular. Hedonistic. Questioning the Paternal Order. The Patriarchal system.

[Zenlitened]

29. Wow, Minus one very eloquent rebuttal, that whole page reads like...

freerepublic.com.

Kos must be so very proud.

:puke:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. That Series of Threads Was an Outrage

I spent a lot of posts fighting with people in those threads. Markos ought to be ashamed of himself, but he isn't cognizant enough on these issues to even feel shame about them.

DTH

[VelmaD]

32. Help...

I'm going to a breakfat next weekend that he's going to be at. I need links over at dailyKOS to pound him with.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

34. Give Me a Few Hours

Let me see what I can dig up.

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

35. I Think They've Already Been Posted

The biggest outrage by far was Kos' front-page statement on the controversy, which I believe has been linked. I don't think he commented within the original criticism thread which had become recommended.

DTH

[cally]

36. Velma...follow the links from the WomenKossacks site

There were some great blogs about the KOS debate last week. I found them by following the links from their site. Most linked to specific quotes by KOS. If you can't find them easily, let me know and I can find some unless they've been taken down.