NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/supermod/1866

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 4.7 KB

Xref: sparky alt.supermodels:1866 soc.women:19669 alt.feminism:4518 soc.men:19365
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!monu6!richardson-1g1-02.cc.monash.edu.au!riaedwards
From: [e-mail] (AUDREY EDWARDS)
Subject: Re: re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet system)
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:21:52 GMT
Lines: 89

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Perez) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Charles Perez)
>Subject: Re: re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
>Date: 10 Nov 92 21:18:05 GMT

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (AUDREY EDWARDS) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>>From: [e-mail] (Dances with Drums)
>>>Subject: re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
>>>Date: 7 Nov 1992 16:33:19 GMT
>>
>>>>From: [e-mail] (Kok-Yong Tan)
>>>>Do you notice that the women (that
>>>>I've met, anyway) who DO come to ask you for a date DON'T have any problems
>>>>with Elle calendars?  :-)
>>>---
>>>        Yes.  I have noticed this.  Generally women who are very self-confident
>>>don't care about such pictures, while those with insecurities usually
>>>do in proportion to their insecurity level.
>>
>>Oh, I see....those women who positively endorse or offer no comment on such
>>calandars are generally "very self confident" whilst those who genuinely,
>>but in my opinion, wrongly find those calandars harmful are "insecure" (with
>>one of the characteristics of such confidence that they "ask you for a
>>date"!) How gracious of you!

>How gracious of *you* to assume that William's power of observation is
>zero without refuting a word he says. ;-)

Okay, I will. He based his assessment of a women's appearance of security
solely on their opinion (or lack of an opinion) of a calendar (which had
to conform with his own). By prefacing his comment with the words
"Generally women", it suggests that his analysis is based on more than just
the women he has met, but a characteristic of most women sharing that
viewpoint. This I regarded as a rather arrogent analysis. If you don't,
fine.

>>There are many women, of mature age, whom few would regard as rad.
feminist, >>particularly ones with strong religious beliefs (in the UK, Mary
Whitehouse >>springs to mind...no doubt the US has an equivilent) who share
such >>attitudes towards the evils of "girlie mags".

>So who says that radical feminists are the only ones who lack self-
>confidence? :-)

Anyone who has listened to Mary Whitehouse would know her problem isn't self-
confidence!! (-:

>>Whilst I don't share there
>>views (my distaste is on aesthetic, rather than moral or censorship
>>grounds), and certainly see no direct link between such material and
>>rape, I wouldn't dream of dismissing such people as "insecure".

>Maybe, just *maybe*, those who said it observed what they saw as insecurity.

Again, the second writer's references were to "women" generally. In
addition, especially in societies which value the right to hold dissenting
opinions, is not dismissing those who disagree with you, as "insecure",
merely shorthand for suggesting that someone else's views are of less value
than your own?

>>Just I
>>defend your right to display as much bad taste as you wish, I defend their
>>right to consider it dangerous (though I suppose, if push came to shove,
>>I'd help you prevent them banning such things!)

>Ah, a true indication of belief in freedom of speech. A mark in your favor.

>>One things for certain, whilst I'm as confident as I want to be, I
>>certainly would not date a man with an Elle MacPherson calandar on his
>>wall! Now, a Paul Klee calandar is different (and for the culturally
>>unenlightened, he is not a member of the Chippendales!!!!)

>So? *I* wouldn't enjoy the company of anyone who referred to someone who
>didn't know who Paul Klee was as "culturally unenlightened". Pretentious
>snob.

It was meant a mild joke. But anyway, "Paul Klee" is a cultural icon, and if
you ain't heard of him, you are, as yet, unenlightened as to who he is. You
are the one making the value judgement of the terminology I used.


>Send flames to [e-mail].

I see...you call me "pretentious snob" in front of millions of people, and I
have to respond (though, as you can see, a lot more politely!) privately....
why???

Audrey.