Once upon a time there was a stupid TV show.
Many, many, many years later, TBS created a stupid TV show based on that stupid TV show.
Some ad guys came up with a stupid ad to promote the stupid TV show based on the original stupid TV show.
The ad guys then came up with more stupid ads promoting the stupid ad for the stupid TV show based on the original stupid TV show that they bought space for on many blogs and websites.
One of those blogs was the DailyKos.
The stupid ad for the stupid ad for the stupid TV show based on a stupid TV show appeared on Kos' page.
Some readers of Kos' page didn't like the ad.
They thought it was more than stupid.
They thought it was offensive. They wrote to tell Kos so. They asked him why he'd chosen to let an ad that insulted and demeaned women appear on his page.
Kos replied that anybody who was upset by the ad was an ugly, humorless, prudish, scolding dyke who should just shut up, go back to the college women's studies programs where humorless dykes belong, and leave him alone to get on with the serious business of saving the county.
He didn't use exactly those words, but he used words close enough that he must have known they would remind everybody who read what he wrote of sentiments like the one above, which are part of the common reaction of sexists when confronted about their sexism.
Many women were offended by Kos' reaction, far more than they were offended by the stupid ad. People who didn't care about the stupid ad one way or another cared that Kos had been so casually sexist and insulting towards women who were only expressing a reasonable concern about what message Kos was sending by allowing that ad to appear on his page.
They let him know about it, on their blogs, in comments, and in emails. Lots of bloggers dropped Kos from their blog rolls.
(Editor's note: Tunesmith has a good summary of how the argument began and how it flared and a good explanation of why Kos' reaction to criticism was boorish, wrong-headed, and just plain wrong. Thanks to Ron Beasley for the link. Lorraine Berry at culturekitchen rounds up a good sampling of women bloggers' reactions. And thanks to mediagirl for that link.)
Kos tried to apologize. His apology came out sounding less than gracious. Actually, it sounded like Groucho apologizing for calling a rival a baboon.
"I wouldn't know what to say either if I was in your place. Maybe you can suggest something. As a matter of fact, you do suggest something. To me you suggest a baboon. I'm sorry I said that. It isn't fair to the rest of the baboons."
Kos' apology:
Hmm, after considering the early feedback, it seems most people didn’t have a problem with the ad, but had a huge problem with my sweeping generalization of the “women’s studies set”.
It’s a fair critique, and duly noted. I stand by everything else written, which is offensive enough to some people as is. But I honestly didn’t mean to smear anyone who has ever taken a women’s studies course, or majored or minored or gotten an advance degree in it. Just what is, to me, a small, extremist set looking for signs of female subjugation under every rock. So yeah, a poor choice of words that cast the net far too wide to cover the people that have, in fact, pissed me off.
Sorry about that, but not sorry about my broader point — that being sanctimonious about this ad is no different than the sanctimony we decry from people like Lieberman, Dobson, and the Family Values Coalition.
Kos probably hoped that would be the end of things. He also probably knew that it wouldn't. And it wasn't.
More angry voices were raised against him. Other counties were heard from.
One of those voices belonged to Shakespeare's Sister.
She wrote a long post laying out exactly what he'd done wrong and how he'd gone about making things worse for himself and his supporters on this matter, and there were many, most expressing their support in the same sort of language Kos used in his first attempt to shut the uppity women up.
The reaction she got from Kos' supporters was what you'd expect. In comments on her post and on their own blogs they told her to shut up.
She was hurting the cause with her criticisms of Kos and her insistence on making a mountain out of a molehill.
As if the cause and Kos are the same thing.
I can see how you might get confused. If you're from Boston, Kos and cause are pronounced alike---cawzzz.
But for all the good work Kos and the people who write for his page have done to help the Democrats, Kos is still what Gag Halfrunt said of Zaphrod Beeblebrox.
"He's just this guy, you know?"
This guy with a blog.
A famous blog. An important blog. But a blog. You start a blog, you're asking for criticism. That's the nature of the beast, the rules of the game, part of the very definition of the work!
John Cole wrote a post that he later claimed was meant to be satirical---he could have clued readers in earlier though by, well, I don't know, making it funny?---in which he pretty much captured the tone of the charges against Shakespeare's Sister.
Jazz Shaw at Running Scared wrote a post in which he affected to take Kos to task for his boorishness, but in which he spent more time explaining why Shakespeare's Sister and others with problems with Kos were causing too much trouble for the Democrats:
Like almost everything else in this snowballing debate, I think that comment [by Shakespeare's Sister] was over the top, and this is hardly a reason to stop reading her blog. I think it does, however, bring up a cautionary note. The GOP seems to be able, at election time (where the rubber really meets the road) to gel their support base into one unit, regardless of divisions inside the party. If this truly is an example of the type of issue that can immediately cause a schism in the Democratic Party, I think that's an alarm bell. If feminists, animal rights advocates, pro-choicers, tax reform advocates, civil rights workers and every other single issue group out there can't pull on the same rope, there's a rocky road ahead. I think that the party that purports to preach tolerance needs to be tolerant of divergent views inside their own ranks.
In short, I think KOS dropped the ball, but all the parties involved, in my never very humble opinion, could have taken the debate in a bit more of a low key direction.
Ok, besides the fact that it was Kos who got into trouble for being intolerant of divergent views and that bloggers like Shakespeare's Sister are being criticized here for expressing their divergent views---views that are divergent mainly in that they diverge from the views Kos and his supporters think they should have---Jazz is arguing that the best thing that good liberals and Democrats should do for the sake of the cause is pretend to be as homogenous, unquestioning, and uncritical of their Party's leadership as the Republicans are.
Even if this was wise counsel, it would be wise counsel only for people actively involved in getting a candidate elected.
We're not talking about campaign workers. We're talking about bloggers. And the point of having a blog is to use it to express one's own ideas and argue for one's own pet causes and issues.
I thought.
(Editor's note: John Cole is a Republican, one of the good ones who are outraged by the incompetencies, dishonesty, and lust for power of the Bush Leaguers, but still a Republican, and Jazz Shaw was a Republican, although now he identifies as an Independent. So neither is truly representative of the liberals and Democrats criticizing Shakespeare's Sister and others who are mad at Kos. But from what I've read I think their criticisms are perfectly representative of the criticisms of the liberals and Democrats. Check out Shakespeare's Sister's comments or wade through the diaries at the DailyKos. Also the comments on Kathy Flake's post here.)
Shakespeare's Sister is having none of it. She's fighting back. Of course she is. She's a fighter. That's why she started the Big Brass Alliance, to help fight to get the regular media and the Democratic Congressional leadership to pay attention to the Downing Street Memo.
Look, I'm not taking Kos off my blogroll. His was one of the first links I put there when I started this page. I put him there under the heading of Good People at Work Saving the Republic. As I said last week, I only changed the name of that category because I thought Partisans sounds snappier. I still believe that working to save the Republic is what all of the bloggers listed there are doing, including and maybe especially Kos.
So he's there. He stays. But I'm not happy to see his name there. I'm not proud to see his name there. That would be like saying when I look out at my driveway at my station wagon I'm happy to see it and proud it's there. It's out there because it needs to be there. It's a necessary tool, one of the most important tools we use to keep the family going, and isn't that a sad commentary on American suburban life.
Kos is a station wagon on my blog roll.
I'm not going to compare Shakespeare's Sister to a car or a tool.
I am happy when I look at my blog roll and see her name on it. I'm proud her name is there. I'm thrilled whenever her name shows up in my comments. And I laugh out loud when email from her lands in my mail box.
Kos is not the liberal cause. He is not the Democratic Party. He has been important to both.
But I won't be surprised if someday, soon, Shakespeare's Sister is just as important.
When that happens, she will be just as much fair game for criticism as Kos is now. As she already is.
The difference between them is that she can take it.
Very, very nicely done. You are a clever boy, too, for picking up that Kos is not the "cause".
Posted by: KathyF | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 12:45 PM
Saving the county? That sounds like a Kenny Rogers song. Or was that Coward of the County?
And I can't believe that some Bananarama spin-off band named after a Smiths song is threatening to destroy the fabric of the progressive grassroots movement.
Posted by: norbizness | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 01:10 PM
It's telling how these guys tell us we have no sense of humor but then get into a snit when we poke them with a stick.
And yeah, you put your opinion out there, you run an ad, you do anything public--you're fair game. Funny how thin-skinned they get when the ones doing the calling out are us silly women.
Posted by: Sheelzebub | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 02:05 PM
"As if the cause and Kos are the same thing."
Seems to me that cuts both ways here. Both critics and supporters are blurring the line between Kos and the progressive cause, IMHO.
Posted by: Kevin | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 02:25 PM
This whole affair has been interesting, though hardly surprising. Scratch most men, even "progressive" men, and what oozes out is rank misogyny. Not all men, of course, but most. Including most gay men, which surprised me very much when I was younger. I can't remember why it surprised me, but it did.
I am consistently amazed at how few feminist men there actually are. Maybe none? Maybe we have yet to see what feminist manhood looks like. Surely when we know what that looks like, we'll know what it really means when we say that feminism is good for everyone.
Posted by: res publica | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 02:52 PM
Lance, sorry I pinged twice. I got a little ping-happy, there!
Also, I think you are showing an attitude of "wagonism." --
"That would be like saying when I look out at my driveway at my station wagon I'm happy to see it and proud it's there....It's a necessary tool....isn't that a sad commentary on American suburban life."
If your station wagon is anything like mine, she knows when you are talking mean about her. So, if she doesn't start for you tomorrow, or say suddenly you discover you are in need of a $2,000 repair -- you can't say I didn't warn you!
Posted by: blue girl | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 03:09 PM
"Once upon a time there was a stupid TV show.
Many, many, many years later, TBS created a stupid TV show based on that stupid TV show......."
I'm so frigheningly informed by 60s and 70s television that I fully expected your little story to end, "My name is Charlie."
Posted by: mrs. norman maine | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 03:13 PM
Kevin,
I think you have a very good point. The whole fight began when a bunch of Kos's readers challenged Kos' personal business decision as if he wasn't a businessman but a beholden spokesman for their cause. But then Kos responded as if he was only a small businessman chasing a pack of rude kids he'd caught shoplifting from his store. His reaction was insulting and people objected, rightly. But you are right, I've read some reactions that sound as though the person writing thinks that being insulted by Kos is the same as being insulted by the entire Democratic party. Those, though, are a minority.
Posted by: Lance | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 03:28 PM
bluegirl,
shhhh! When I wrote that bit about the wagon I typed very quietly so the car wouldn't hear me. Now you're going to give me away!
I was able to clean up the double-ping. You probably don't have that function on your blog. It's one of the nifty features like an order button that I got just for being a boy blogger.
Mrs M,
When I was writing that part I kept thinking, "I sound like somebody here," but I couldn't figure out who. Now I know.
Posted by: Lance | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 03:36 PM
Damn, you and I are of the same mind. But you know, with 100% less sexy pictures.
Posted by: Amanda | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 04:10 PM
Beautiful. You have a knack for the well-crafted phrase, did you know?
Posted by: Rana | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 04:49 PM
Jeez. Doesn't anyone younger than 50 have a sense of history? Don't they know New Left male objectification and condescension to women precipitated feminism's 2nd wave? I'm an old broad, happily embracing my chrone age, disgusted but hardly surprised that Kos and klatch are unwilling or incapable of genuine reflection or insight into their own fear-driven bigotry -- which. is. exactly. what. it. is. The self-involved mediocrity of most of the three-legged sex, regardless of what side's political virtues they espouse, is the bottom-line reason why the world's such a mess. DKos is great place for political new/info, but for insight, it's Tabuala Rasaland.
Posted by: cs | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 04:50 PM
What a wonderful post!
I've linked it in my latest post (Ode to Misogyny.)
Posted by: Mad Kane | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 07:07 PM
Excellent! Great post, thank you
Posted by: Liz Smith- Blondesense | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 08:07 PM
I read the post on Kos myself and was pretty shocked myself. The level of contempt he showed was unbelievable for someone who believes himself to be on the 'right' side.
Without going into the merits of whether he was right in clubbing Lieberman and the women who took offence( stupid move) which you have covered excellently (no surprises there), what one needs to take a look at is the behavior of the kossacks.
The liberal bloggers seem to take great pleasure in reviling those on the other side and how the other side reveres their leader. But a look at these guys' behavior reveals they are not that different. Questioning Kos seems to be equal to heresy in some circles and I cannot get over the fact that these guy do not seem to see the irony in doing that. Steve Gilliard's response was disappointing to say the least. The fact that the blog is Kos' livelihood does not excuse his response.
I've never read Shakespeare's sister before, but after this, she is going to be a regular read of mine.
Posted by: Samuel | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 09:36 PM
Amanda, I---
Damn. There was something I wanted to say. I think it was important. But then I went and looked at those pictures of yours again and the thought went right out of my head.
Wait. Wait. It was...
Nope. Gone again.
Posted by: Lance | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 10:02 PM
LOL. Ah, I gave into the requests and handed one over to the ladies. I just wanted to make it clear to the whiners that contrary to their feverish hopes, I'm really not anti-sex or anti-nudie shots.
CS, I hear you, but take a little pity on us. Call us naive, but many of us were hoping men that grew up in the shadow of feminism maybe would be a teeny-weeny more conscious.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 10:05 PM
I have been watching this from the sidelines, but what I am wondering is why people care so much about what Kos thinks, though I understand why they're pissed off at his ill-tempered comments. I read his blog pretty much daily, but it's been a long time since I read it for what he writes as opposed to the 'chaos and cacophony' of the Kos community. He is an interesting voice, but he's just one voice on that community, and not the most interesting writer on that site, let alone in the blogosphere, in my opinion. I view him as the owner of an interesting bar where I go for the conversation of the other patrons, not the views of the owner -- as opposed to Tbogg, Gilliard, or Wolcott, for example (or our host on this site -- though as a former resident of the Salt City I may be biased on that front).
I used to work full time in national politics, but I got out of it when it became just a job to me as opposed to working for a cause I loved. I see some of the more prominent liberal bloggers as buying into the game and getting caught up in the intrigues of court, and I see those bloggers making the same compromises that I saw my friends from earlier campaigns make as they tried to rationalize working for more establishment type candidates rather than for the causes for which we had originally worked. That's probably why the people who I find most interesting to read are those who have other things going on in their lives(i.e. writers who are dilettantes like me and don't need to work in politics to feed their families) and who don't focus obsessively on who's up and who's down in the royal court on this particular day. That's one reason I appreciate Lance pointing out the culture blogs that cover much more than politics, because at the end of the day, life's too short to worry about whether Joe Biden is getting along with Howard Dean.
Posted by: Flatiron Dante | Monday, June 13, 2005 at 11:51 PM
Dante, I think at this point Kos himself has stopped being the issue. What people are angry about now is what they see as an attempt by one group of bloggers (mostly male) to tell another group of bloggers (mostly women) what's important enough to worry about and write about. That's what was so galling about Kos'sneering, "Me, I'm going to concentrate on the important shit." He seemed to be claiming to be the one who gets to decide what the important shit is. His supporters have taken their cue from that.
Steve Gilliard's post defending Kos is in the same vein. He pretty much says that anyone who is bothered by Kos' running the ad (and he means women) just doesn't understand business. "Gals, you just don't have heads for big numbers."
You're right about Kos' community being the best thing about his site now. I've read that Kos himself refuses to acknowledge this and treats the diaries as if they were "his." I don't know if that's the case, but if it is it means that if he's the bartender/owner in your analogy, he thinks of the diarists as the wait staff.
Thanks for reading. I'm glad you enjoy my page.
Posted by: Lance | Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 07:54 AM
I don't think it is so much mistaking the Kos for the cause. I don't even read the Kos that often. It's just that, empirically, when progressive squabble with moderates, or among themselves, the beneficiaries are the reactionaries. It's hard to know what's cause and effect here, though. Maybe the squabbling isn't the cause of our impotence, it's a symptom of it.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 09:15 AM
Lance, I agree with your point about the male/female divide and I think you hit the nail on the head with your earlier post about the tunnel vision the (mostly male) political bloggers have. Maybe I'm just a little burned out after the last election cycle, but I can only take those political bloggers in small doses these days. I think a lot of them fall into the trap of thinking that this particular election cycle is the most important in world history and so everything in the world other than getting someone with a D by their name elected now is not important.
To me, it seems pretty important to call people out when they say stupid things, and when it's someone on your side I think it's arguably more important, because you may have a chance to get them to change. Mario Cuomo talked about how in addition to fighting for civil rights in the public sphere, we also need to do so in the private sphere, by, for example, standing up to what he called "living room talk" (or something like that). What he meant by that was that when someone you know says something racist or sexist to you in a private setting, you should let them know you disagree. Not that the Kos board is a private setting, but I agree with Governor Cuomo that you need to call out stupidity when you see it, even if it is your friend or a writer with whom you usually agree.
Posted by: Flatiron Dante | Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 12:05 PM
Here's the thing... I'll happily grant that Kos' reaction was condescending. But... has anyone considered the possibility that he might have been responding sorta "in kind" with what he may have seen as presumptuous demands?
I know this much... I sure as hell wouldn't be pleased if someone demanded that I change something on my blog.
Maybe... Just maybe people are reading a gender war into this which cuts both ways.
Posted by: Kevin | Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 03:56 PM
Did you ever read the original diary about the pie ad? I've been trying to find it, but no luck so far. I noticed many members of the community were saying Kos was probably just frustrated by angry e-mails, but he never mentions e-mails in his Pie Ad response. I assume he read the same diary that I did. It came after other diaries by women concerning Kos's comments regarding NARAL and the issue of Choice and another diary about the fact that anytime Kos or other male diarists wanted to indicate weakness in another man they call him "ball-less" or "pussy" or "bitch"- in other words- a woman. So then came the pie ad. A diarist asked thoughtfully and cautiously as to whether or not the pie ad might not be insulting to the many women at Kos who were already feeling marginalized there. She was asking how others felt about it- no demands for it be removed or name calling. Basically it was- on top of everything else- now there's this pie ad. Could it be possible this ad might be interpreted as trivializing women who are already feeling trivialized by this community? Is it really a good idea to have it here? What do you all think? There were some very strong responses.
When Kos made put up that front page scold about the pie ad, he never once mentioned that diary or the other issues it brought up. He very much wanted it to be about the pie and the thin skinned “women’s studies set".
I've been reading Kos for over a year now, but I’ve decided to move on. I'm over Kos and the Democratic Party for that matter. That tent isn't nearly as big as they pretend it is.
Posted by: ivy | Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 05:07 PM
My. My my my. This is why I read Lance Mannion instead of Kos; thank you, Lance! Kos, yes, founding father, important function, Democratic, anti-Bush-Imperialistes, blah blah blah. Unfortunately, I always found Kos' blog (to keep this separate from Kos himself, about whom I have no opinions since I do not know him) to suffer from the male disorder of Factuality Worship, where stacking up the biggest possible tower of Facts (or factoids, or pseudofacts) is the only thing that counts. Side effects of FW include obsessing over hit counters and the number & cost of blogads accrued. It is a perfectly defensible way of running your blog -- or your career, or your life -- and certainly the most likely way to profit monetarily from blogging. But I find it boring. I prefer to read blogs I find interesting, which tend to have fewer facts & more actual writing per column inch... like this one. Of course, I'm not TBS and can't throw a few thou into Kos' tip jar, so he's not required (as he understands the blog universe) to take notice of my opinion. But, as you so cogently point out, advertisers follow readers, so driving readers away by (further) insulting them is not even logical in the Factuality Worship universe. Although it certainly helps reinforce my prejudice that FW is a "guy" thing!
Posted by: Anne Laurie | Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 06:05 PM
"This whole affair has been interesting, though hardly surprising. Scratch most men, even "progressive" men, and what oozes out is rank misogyny. Not all men, of course, but most. Including most gay men, which surprised me very much when I was younger. I can't remember why it surprised me, but it did."
I agree that the original ad was dubious. (How it compares to joking that Ginger probably loves "the money shot", I don't know: maybe each female bloggers' boyfriend gets one free pass on a cumshot joke.) I agree that Kos was being an asshole in his response to the concerns raised. But: please stop with the bullshit generalizations.
Posted by: Ken C. | Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 10:08 AM
Kos and klatch are unwilling or incapable of genuine reflection or insight into their own fear-driven bigotry -- which. is. exactly. what. it. is.
Posted by: cs | June 13, 2005 01:50 PM
what are they afraid of?
Posted by: hello | Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 06:26 PM
The hostile and dismissive comments of Kos were just the last straw for a lot of progressives. The tipping point if you will. Progressives were becoming more marginalized at DailyKos, called "single-issue" people, told to buckle down and support the party, just get Dems elected. Kos is becoming just another Democratic party apologist, not a reformer.
At some point, push had to come to shove. Timing has a lot to do with it. We are all deciding how much to get involved in the 2006 elections. Where am I going to put my time and maybe more importantly, where am I going to put my money?
I know a lot of progressives who have been sitting on the Democratic fence for so long we've got splinters in our butts. We're waiting and waiting for signs of life from the Democratic leadership. We liked what we saw with Dean and we sent money. Then we watched as Pelosi and Reid ran away from him. WTF?
So we're waiting for signs of hope and you know what we see? Nothing. No movement. No issues. No vision. No plans. No "contract with america". The "leadership" seems truly torn. They don't know what to do with Dean who was chosen by Democratic party grassroots, not by the leadership. They don't know how to say no to the lobbyists money. They are afraid of the wrath of Rove. They look like spineless cowards.
It's becoming more and more clear that they are going to run the 2006 Congressional elections as republican lite.
Yuk.
Where to go? Are the Greens a realistic alternative? Should we just work on state issues and keep our eyes closed about national issues until 2008? Do we continue to try to change the party from within when the party leadership is clearly freaked out by us?
???????
Posted by: reason | Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 07:50 PM
Reason,
Why does one have to go anywhere? I've been an Independent for quite a few years now and it has never prevented me from voting or from cooperating with any organization to apply political pressure towards a given goal. I'm on the MoveOn and DFA email lists. Ditto for a Union activist list even though I'm not a member of a union. And I've been on several lefty blogosphere email lists from time to time. Not to mention encouraging some of the other Indie bloggers out there to join overwhelmingly Democratic action alliances like Shake's BBA.
Not being a member has never stopped me and it doesn't need to stop you or anyone else. In fact I would have to say that being a member is pretty much irrelevant.
Maybe you're not a Howard Dean fan. If so then this probably won't mean anything to you. But... I met Dean at a book signing last fall. Taking advantage of his relatively undivided attention for a few seconds I talked about Independents and how many of us have no intention of becoming Dems, yet many of us wholeheartedly supported him and continue to do so. I pointed stated that what he was working for (real change) is larger than any political party. Up until that last comment he'd been giving me about 50% of his attention while he signed my books. But, he looked up and emphatically stated that it most certainly was larger than a political party... with that patented waggle of his finger that he uses to drive home an important point.
Fight for what you believe in. Vote for who you want to represent you. If party loyalists have a problem with it merely on the basis of you not belonging then it's time to re-evaluate whether they deserve your votes and support.
Posted by: Kevin | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 11:03 AM