NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/feminism/4865

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 2.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!sequoia!ee.uts.EDU.AU!johnr
From: [e-mail] (John Reekie)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 22 Nov 92 13:43:59 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rossi.ee.uts.edu.au

[e-mail] (Trish Turliuk) writes:

>[e-mail] (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>>[e-mail] (David S. Auer) writes:
>>>
>>>}Should one express oneself in a manner that is offensive to another?
>>>}Legally, this should be allowed; yet, if one knows that one's expression
>>>}will wantonly offend those who do not wish to be offended, is not appropriate
>>>}to move one's expression elsewhere?

>>So while you may claim
>>to be offended by my freedom of expression, you are both attempting
>>to curtail my freedom of expression *AND* offending who I am.  You
>>are saying that *I* am causing you harm by me just being who I am.

>You certainly have the right to display what you want in your room.
>You say that the presence of Elle in your room is somehow a
>reflection of who you are as a person. If this is indeed the case, then don't
>be surprised when women take offence and/or change their attitudes towards
>you. In displaying an anti-model, you are displaying your attitudes about
>what you consider beauty. You are accepting and perpetuating all the
>(bleached) roots of the misrepresentation of women at large.

Trish, do _you_ think that the presence of Elle is a true reflection
of who he (or me, say) is as a person?  Or is human nature
sufficiently complex that it cannot be meaningfully judged
by a single "reflection"?

I agree that "freedom of expression" that someone else finds
offensive should most likely be moved elsewhere.
What I would really like to know is this: Do you see a distinction
between avoiding a meaningful relationship with someone because
a) the presence of an Elle calendar symbolises the "misrepresentation
of women at large," and b) the presence of an Elle calendar indicates
a person so badly flawed in outlook that you cannot have a meaningful
relationship with him? For example, (a) would be akin to avoiding
a meaningful relationship with someone of a different religion
simply because he or she was of a different religion, while (b)
would be like avoiding a relationship because his or her
membership in that religion necessarily makes the _individual_
impossible to relate to.

(Does this question make sense?)

>I would not *force* you to remove the calendar from your wall. I wouldn't
>take away that freedom. I *would* avoid your room and any sort of meaningful
>relationship with you.

>Trish

John