NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/feminism/4507

Text File | 1992-11-15 | 3.3 KB | 87 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!ornl!sunova!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!payner
From: [e-mail] (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:26:24 GMT
Lines: 76

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>>On these grounds, I think one could also argue that a Chippendale's
>>>>>calendar also means a very different thing in our society than
>>>>>a swimsuit calendar.  I'm pretty sure they do mean different things
>>>>>to your average Joe and Jane Doe.  (Note that I'm not interested in
>>>>>debating if one is harmful and the other is not -- it's not real clear
>>>>>cut to me.  I'm no semi-nude calendar expert!  I don't really have
>>>>>much of a clue as to what the two types of calendar "mean".)
>>>
>>>>>Does that make any sense?
>>>
>>>>Yes, the old "oppressed people cannot be x-ist" argument.
>>>
>>>No it isn't.
>>>
>>>Apparently, you tried very hard to read something into what I wrote
>>>that was clearly not there.
>>>
>>>What I'm saying is that it may not be very meaningful to compare
>>>a bikini calendar of women to a Chippendale's calendar of men.
>>
>>Why or why not.
>>
>>>Maybe it would be *more* useful to compare a bikini calendar
>>>of women to a calendar of bachelor men which listed their
>>>incomes, assets, and number of credit cards.
>>
>>Maybe it would be more useful to compare a bikini calender to a can
>>of motor oil, but I doubt it.
>>
>>>*That's* what I mean when I say that sexism is a two-way street, but
>>>it necessarily doesn't operate in the same way to the different people.
>>
>>Is that not what feminists here claim is the problem with society?
>>
>>>Indeed, the very existence of "sexism" implies that there are double-
>>>standards.
>>
>>So you defend the ones which might be to your advantage, even with
>>similar to identical situations.
>>
>>>If the world was as full of Chippendale's calendars as it is full
>>>of calendars of scantily clad women, I think it'd be silly to conclude
>>>that the sexism has now simply doubled.
>>
>>Too bad, because it would indeed follow.
>
>Ah, but only if you accepted the premise that the calendars were directly
>linked with sexism.  :-)

Was that not the basis for this thread? More to the point is the subject line,
"Elle MacPherson causes rape". I do not accept this premise, but it seems
that many women do.

>Seriously, there are all sorts of other conclusions about sexism that would be
>equally valid.

But due to double standards are not considered so?

>>>                                            Instead, this would be a
>>>convincing indicator to suggest that isn't a sexist world anymore at
>>>all.
>>
>>Or that neither one was ever sexist. (you know, the sexism is in the eye
>>of the beholder)
>>
>>>rini
>>Rich
>>[e-mail]
>"TANSTAAFL"     [e-mail]

Rich again