The obligatory Mark Foley post

I've been issued a summons by the blogosphere PD for failing to write about the October Surprise of the century. It's apparently required by law for everyone with a blog. So:

First off, the disclaimers: what Foley did was a horrible abuse of trust and power, and my deepest sympathies go out to his victims (and they are victims, whether they think they are or not).

The media has been all over this story, and rightfully so (note to my colleagues: THIS is our role in society. Not Jen-Brad-Angie, or round-the-clock coverage of missing girls who happen to be pretty, white and wealthy, or water-skiing squirrels. We're the watchdogs, and we bring people like Foley into the harsh light of truth and demand accountability, when we're not distracted by Anna Nicole Smith.) But the cynic in me has to ask an uncomfortable question:

Would the story be getting so much play if the pages had been girls?

Obviously, I can't speak for any of the many people at any publication who make news decisions. I can only observe that I heard a few comments, the first day, along the lines of "Oh, I didn't realize the page was male," said in a way that implied "Whoa, this is way bigger than I thought."

Next question: Would the GOP have reacted the same way if the pages had been girls?

And: would the Washington Times have turned so fiercely on Hastert, demanding his resigntation, if the pages had been girls? This is, after all, a paper whose editor in chief once lamented that Bob Packwood had been forced to resign, when all he did was "kissed a couple of women who might have otherwise gone unkissed."

On the one hand, it's strictly an academic point. The pages weren't girls, and plenty of lawmakers from both parties have been forced out -- either by Congress or by their constituents -- for inappropriate sexual conduct. But it goes to a deeper question about the values of the people who brought Foley's behavior to light and the people who forced him out.

If those people feel Foley was wrong because he was taking advantage of an underage person -- any person -- who was in a clearly subordinate position to him, then bravo. You exposed a pedophile and took him down.

But if those people's biggest problem with Foley's conduct is that it involved people of the same sex, that's not only homophobic. It's also misogynistic, because if it's somehow worse that boys were involved, then it has to be better if it had been girls. That's the way rating scales work.

Pedophilia is pedophilia, and rape is rape. There's no sliding scale that traumatizes female victims less.

To the comment boards!