Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Re -1, Unfortunately, it occurs to me that Cheryl might not mind
    since she has fared quite well financially from the fact that men
    like to oogle her picture.  Remember that tiny bikini poster of
    her that was everywhere a few years ago?  She probably made a million
    bucks off the sales of that alone!!!  (Sure she has a great body,
    but is she interesting to talk to, is she a kind person, a good
    portion of her fortune is just a lucky chance of nature in being
    born beautiful!  I have to admit I could "work out" for years and
    I'd never look that good.)
    
    Good looks in women are so over-appreciated in this society.  Growing
    up as an average looking woman, I found it so painful to realize
    that many men will just pass me by in my life simply because I am
    not gorgeous.  They'll never take the time to discover how much
    fun I can be to be around because I'm not beautiful.  Now, I'm just
    too old for many men to notice.  These are the thoughts that pictures
    like this come to mind.  They make men seem so shallow in what they
    are capable of appreciating in a woman.  And, even worse we are
    supposed to accept the fact good-naturedly that men want to have
    these pictures of women, but it's only until recent years that women
    even had pictures of men to look at.   And, even worse than that
    is that pictures of naked men don't do much for me anyway.  But,
    I do think that if they are going to make them of Cheryl they should
    make computer printouts of gorgeous, scantily glad men, too.  How
    about Harrison Ford in a G-string?
    
    Lorna
    

    I'm of the opinion that display of such images in the office is
    not only poor taste but could be construed as violating company
    policy on sexual harassment.  I sure hope these aren't being shown
    to customers!
    
    By the way - an early demo of the VAXstation, I believe, included
    an image of one of the Disney characters - perhaps Goofy.
    The Disney organization found out and threatened legal action against
    DEC.
    
    I have on a magtape numerous "computer posters" I collected in
    college, many of which represent the unclothed female form.  I
    would never ever display one of these at the office.  (Nor would
    I put one up at home, but that's a different subject.)
    
    					Steve

    And presumably Mr. Einstein doesn't say too much about us using
    his picture either... :-}
    
    So far the answers to this note focus only on the question of whether
    or not Cheryl would mind.
    
    I think the other questions are much more compelling:  are
    sexploitation shots offensive (whether of men or women), and should
    Digital "officially" condone the use of them by distributing them
    in demo packages?
    
    My opinion?  Yes, they are extremely offensive and absolutely do
    not belong in the workplace.  And I'm sure the demos which include
    them have not been condoned by whoever watches over the company
    image.
                             
    - Susan
    

    re. .5 
    
    Absolutely!  Whether or not these types of photos should be construed
    as offensive (my opinion is that they are), they have no place in
    a work environment.  
    
    Using personal items/photos in the workplace can help to relax the
    atmosphere and enhance working conditions, but one must keep in
    mind the fact that the workplace is not a private environment, but
    a public one.  I can hang my pictures in my office, but it's still
    DEC's building.  It's inappropriate to treat my office the same
    way I treat my home (especially since other people have access to
    it at all times).
    
    G

    
       It just seems childish and unprofessional, it kinda reminds me
    of little kids bringing dirty pictures to school to try to get 
    attention.   
        
        As for scantily dressed men,  who need Robert Redford or 
    Harrison Ford.   Maybe some DEChunks will volunteer their bodies
    for digital posterity.  
    
    Paul 

                                                                  
    These are scanned images, if I'm not mistaken, which means we
    could scan in something of value like Raphael's "Aphrodite" or
    Micheangelo's "David," and so on. It's a matter of choice, and as
    .8 points out, it seems the choice has been made by some 10-year-
    old mind running the machines in-house. I've seen the VSII/GPX
    demo at DECworld '86 and DECUS. Thankfully, no pinup shot
    appeared, at least none that I saw. Ken Olson, Albert Einstein,
    and a baboon were the only mammals I saw on screen. I assume
    that the only images of a women available are of Cheryl. Pretty
    sad comment on DEC...
    
    

    The rolling demo account for the ULTRIX workstation has a very nice
    image of Mona Lisa (with clothes...)
    
    - Susan
    

    Interesting question.  I have noticed since I was a child that in
    movies the female body was often displayed, whereas the male body
    was rarely displayed (and it is still rare to see a nude male from
    the full front).  I always complained that this was unfair to people
    who might enjoy seeing a male body.
    
    As for the question at hand, I would prefer to leave off the bathing
    suit and nude poses in favor of mountain scenes or something.
    If someone were to hang a calendar then I think I would judge the
    circumstances.  If all the photos were pinup pets (either male or
    female) then I would object.  If it were a calendar of classical
    art, and the statue of David was just one of them, no problem.
    However, if the calendar was titled "Naked Art" (excuse the pun)
    then I would object.
    
    re: earlier note -- Harrison Ford is a *good* choice.
    
                          Carol

    Anecdote:
    
    When I was working for Dow (yes, Chemical, an institution with a
    horrible rep that *I* don't think it deserves...), I need to get
    an instrument made, and I didn't know how to use machining tools.
     This fantastic, unassuming, _very_ happliy married man who basically
    ran the shop helped me learn how to lathe metals, etc, etc.
    
    After a while, he asked me why the other female engineers never
    spent any time in the shop discussing their designs with him (it
    helps make them more make-able and often more useful tools) rather
    than send him orders and changes in such an indirect way.  I suggested
    to him that women would be a lot more comfortable in his shop iff
    they didn't have to see pictures of people without clothes.  He
    had your typical pin-up calendars on the wall.  Bathing suits, but
    teeny tiny ones.
    
    He was shocked and embarassed.  It never occurred to him that these
    would make anyone uncomfortable.  His horror at possibly offending
    someone surprised me, for gazillion reasons.  The calendars
    disappeared, and he apologized profusely hoping he hadn't offended
    me.
    
    
    Anecdote 2:
    
    One of the leches in the lab printed out the Cheryl Tiegs thing
    and hung it up on the wall of one of the sweetest (single) guys
    in the lab.  I saw it and was so upset that this nice guy would
    do something so offensive, that I approached him and begged him
    to put up with my intractibility and TAKE DOWN THAT HORRIBLE AWFUL
    EXPLOITIVE THING RIGHT _NOW_!!!!!!
    
    He hadn't put it up and hadn't been to his office since it had been
    put up.  (Sounds like bull, but I believe him)  If I knew who *did*
    put that thing on the wall...well, I wouldn't go to management,
    but that idiot would get an earful from me!
    
    
    You aren't being oversensitive; sexual things belong in sexual places
    and not in an office, lab, or even a machine shop.
    
    Lee

    
    RE. 13, Second Anecdote
    
    I thoroughly agree. Not only that, the databases should be purged
    of this kind of trash. They provide nothing from a technical point
    of view & only reinforce sexist notions.
    
    I prophecize the following: that Cheryl Tiegs image is going to
    be found out by some agent who could in theory sue the hell out
    of DEC for its propagation across our networks. Leaving aside the
    obvious financial damage, it would be a terrible embarassment for
    our company from a social point of view. We could easily turn away
    many valuable future employees (mostly women) who read that our
    networks are full of pinup/swimsuit/nude posters. Very tacky, not
    to mention plain offensive.
    

        Quite honestly, I can't understand why people are offended
        by pictures of people... regardless of their state of dress.
        Of course, I've never understood laws against walking around
        naked, either; or why society insists on sexually segregated
        locker rooms or washrooms.
        
        I don't mean this to insult anyone... but, are those offended by
        "pinups" also offended by nudes painted/sculpted by classical
        and renaissance artists in museums?  Do you consider photography
        less "art" than paintings or sculptures?  Or are you merely
        unwilling to concede that anyone might consider photography
        of "cute models" (regardless of sex) which appears in a
        calendar/etc. as "art"?
        
        I have a Sports Illustrated swimsuit calendar in my office. Now,
        while I realize many people might be immature enough to consider
        such a calendar as "sexual", the simple fact is that is it
        merely pleasant and harmless art.  Our group's secretary's
        office contains a "Boys of Hawaii" calendar which I purchased
        for her while on vacation in Hawaii last year... for 1986, she
        had a different calendar of scantily clad men.  Her office also
        contains a plethora of Tom Selleck portraits.  To the best of my
        knowledge, nobody has ever been offended by any of this.  (I
        also have a button purchased from a science fiction convention,
        reading "Real programmers don't document. If it was hard to
        write, it should be hard to understand". One tech. writer was in
        fact quite offended by this little joke, and she didn't hesitate
        to say so).
        
        Both men and women have demonstrated (what I would consider)
        both reasonable and unreasonable responses to my calendar. Of
        course, there are always a few men who drop by to drool over it
        (in fact, it is only because of them that I have occasionally
        entertained thoughts of removing it... they bother me).  The
        aforementioned secretary likes to examine each one, and will
        occasionally comment facetiously "she's too cute: she should be
        shot"... which is what led me to buy the Hawaiian calendar for
        her.  Most people, men and women, who take any obvious notice of
        the calendar, will examine it and perhaps briefly discuss the
        aesthetics of the current picture... nice swimsuit, or nice
        beach, etc.  My calendars have started many pleasant
        conversations with members of both sexes... and the only
        unpleasant conversations have been with the few leering men. 
        
        Is the human body really so unpleasant that people can't
        stand to look at it?  I don't think so.  The human body is
        art, and it's beautiful.  And I mean aesthetically beautiful,
        not merely erotic.  My preference happens to be for the female
        body... at least to the point where I would likely buy myself
        a calendar of nude men.  Still, I'm perfectly capable of
        appreciating the non-sexual aesthetics of either.
        
        I'd put display of calendars in the same category as style
        of dress.  Nobody has the right to tell me to wear a suit
        and tie just because that person might erroneously believe
        that "professionals wear suits and ties".  Similarly, someone's
        erroneous believe that a swimsuit calendar is somehow sexual
        should not (and shall not) influence my taste in art.
        
        Now, if you want to debate whether there's any room for personal
        expression in the office... that's a different matter. Both
        Barbara's office and mine---and many others---display a wide
        variety of assorted stuff, from newspaper clippings to comic
        strips, to (on Barbara's office) a button reading "God is
        real unless declared integer" (a FORTRAN joke).  I'm sure
        much of this could be considered "offensive" to someone,
        somewhere.  Whether they have the right to prevent it for
        that reason is an entirely different question... and has
        nothing to do with whether the material offends sexual,
        religious, nationalistic, artistic, or political sensitivities.
        
        Everyone's quick to argue for their own freedom of speech,
        expression, or whatever.  Far too many people forget that
        freedom of expression entails and requires exercise of a
        corresponding freedom to *ignore* others' expressions with which
        you don't happen to agree.  If you don't like my calendar, or my
        secretary's calendar, or Barbara's button, you have no need to
        look at them.  You have no right to claim that nobody else can
        look at them either.  If you don't like someone's sexual
        preference, or hair style, or skin color... then recognize
        that it's your own problem, not that of the person who is
        "offending" you.
        
        	/dave

re: .15

Right. It's easy to say, "That pinup is offensive", but then say, "That
[nude] statue is a masterpiece". It makes a lot of sense until you stop and
realize that there may be a contradiction. The difference, of course, is the
intent of the artist, and how it's received.

In a way, this is similar to looking at attractive people -- there's really
nothing wrong with looking at someone, but it becomes offensive when you're
obnoxious about it, and stare or make remarks. Pinup photos tend toward the
obnoxious end of the scale.

>        I have a Sports Illustrated swimsuit calendar in my office. Now,
>        while I realize many people might be immature enough to consider
>        such a calendar as "sexual", the simple fact is that is it
>        merely pleasant and harmless art.  

In theory, there's nothing wrong with the pinup photo, but in practice, it's
not displayed as art. (Of course, that depends on what you think "art" is).
They aren't published so that you can see the bathing suit, or the ocean, or
the python, or appreciate the aesthetically pleasing human form, they're
published so you can stare at the "pretty girl" in the photo. The effect is
to reduce the portrayed person (usually a woman) to an object. *That's*
offensive.

I doubt that many people would agree that the calendar is art and not
sexual.

Of course, your female secretary has similar pictures of men, so maybe that
makes it all ok.  Maybe it doesn't -- maybe that's equally offensive, but
from the other side.  I don't know.

I believe that ads, pinup photos, and porn magazines are wrong because of
how they treat those who are displayed (and so encourage readers think of
those people that way). However, I agree that it's wrong to censor them.
Censorship will only take them out of the 7-Eleven Stores, but they'll still
be out there.

That doesn't leave much room for an answer. The only answer is to educate
people so that they don't have the need (whatever it is) to take advantage
of people, or use them, or reduce them to objects.


To go back to your calendar again: if it were published with the intent of
simply displaying things that are nice to look at, there'd be some Boys of
Hawaii along with the Sports Illustrated bathing suit pinups.
Unfortunately, that wouldn't sell very well.

					-- hal

    Re: art vs sex -- where to draw the line:
    	I agree with .17; the point is that the model in a calendar/pin-up
    is an _object_.  Putting one of those on a wall in your office is
    uncomfortably like saying women-are-sex-objects-if-they-are-young-and-
    have-a-good-body, which leads quickly to the (wrong) conclusion that 
    female colleagues are sex objects if they are young and have a good
    body.  I'm not saying that women shouldn't be perceived as beautiful
    and/or sexy; I'm saying that people are not objects and should not
    be treated as such.  I'd object to a male pin-up as much as a female
    one, and have done so.
    	I also happen to feel it is unprofessional, and would fight
    to keep pin-ups (and probably nude-art, but not having been faced
    with that situation...) out of my workplace.  If it _had_ to be
    permitted, I'd find a new workplace.
    
    Re censorship:  what you do in private is none of my business, and
    I am not forced to comply.  I don't think porn should be banned from
    stores, nor should people be denied their sex objects if they want them.
    I think the day we as a nation/society/race become a little more
    healthy-minded about sex, perhaps there will be fewer revolting
    mags (anyone remember the Hustler cover with a woman's legs sticking
    out of one end of a hamburger grinder?), but I don't have to buy
    those mags and if I have children, I hope they won't want to buy
    them, so I don't see anything solved by censorship in stores.
    
    Someone like me might work with you someday however, and be basically
    forced to interact with you on a day-to-day basis.  Is it worth
    forcing me to leave because you have to have a pin-up in your office?
    While I may seem intractable on this issue, how does it hurt business
    to work without a pin-up on the wall?  And I think it could be bad
    for business (yours as well as DEC's) to force people to leave your
    group for something like that.
    
    Trying to be reasonable on an unreasonable issue--
    
    Lee
    my contribution
    

   Again, re: art vs. pin-up
    
    Deciding what is art and what is not is and always will be subjective.
     But I have to agree that the intent of the "artist" or photographer
    can be a large factor.  I don't consider the beautifully photographed
    portraits of athletes on Corn Flake boxes to be art, because it's
    intent is to sell me on the Corn Flakes.
    
    I know people who have posters/pictures of old advertisements hung
    on their walls.  This is not art, this is decorating.  This is the
    same argument I have about dance -- ballet is art, getting down
    in a nightclub is not.  Taking something like photography beyond
    the basics of capturing the physical image is when it becomes art.
    Opinion.  Pin-ups, which have "selling" as their intent, are using
    the human body in what I consider to be a negative way, by
    "objectifying" them.  
    
    As to "free speech" in your office, isn't this nearly the same 
    arguement that smokers make?
    
    Gloria
    

    Re .19, Steve, I have to strongly disagree with you that art of
    any kind is distracting to the workplace.  I have several large
    postcard sized Renoir reproductions in my office (none of his chubby
    nudes).  Most people ignore them and if anybody says anything it
    is to ask me if I saw the show at the Boston Art Museum last year.
     I enjoy working in pleasant surroundings and being able to put
    pictures that I find pleasing up on my office walls is very important
    to me.  When my physical surroundings are pleasant, my morale is
    higher, and my work is done better.
    
    I also have a Bruce Springsteen concert poster on my office wall,
    but he is fully clothed.  I don't think it's really *that* difficult
    for most people to be able to distinguish between office decorations
    which are not apt to offend anyone and those that are.
    
    Re .21, I think there is some middle ground between finding naked
    pinups in business offices offensive and being such a prude that
    you change your clothes in the dark!
    
    Lorna
    

      >  Whether
      >  it may be true or not, the reaction that I and many others have
      >  to someone who strenuously objects to these posters is "What's
      >  their problem?". The stereotypes that usually come out are;
      >  I bet the bitch undresses in the dark or I bet the jerk can't
      >  get it up. 
    
    			Are you serious?  Do you (and other people)
    		always make judgments about people's sexual habits/
    		ability_to_perform based on how they feel about what
    		is or is not appropriate for an office wall?
    
    			Don't you think that's going a bit far?
    
    							Suzanne...

        By saying that a picture with a pretty woman in it treats
        her as an "object" and is therefore offensive, you've reduced
        much of Renaissance and Classical art to "offense".  Poor
        old Michaelangelo... all those trashy sculptures of nude
        people he turned out.  Guess he just didn't know any better.
        
        *I* do not think of the women on my calendar as "objects".
        They're people.  They're professionals who make their living
        (and in many cases a very good one) from selling images of
        themselves.  If you walk by and choose to consider them
        "objects", that's your hangup, not mine, and you do me a
        grave injustice by assuming I share your prejudice.
        
        The intent of Sports Illustrated, Brian Lanker (the
        photographer, and a good one), the various women who posed
        for the pictures, or the various fashion companies who supplied
        swimsuits (for the purpose of advertising), is really not
        relevant.  I suppose one could consider them all exploitive
        in one sense or another... the publisher is exploiting the
        attractiveness of the women to make money selling calendars
        (and Sports Illustrated subscriptions); the photographer
        is exploiting the women and his talent to make a living,
        and similarly for the women themselves; the fashion companies
        are of course exploiting all of this to sell bathing suits.
        *My* intent is to enjoy the pictures.  They are relaxing
        and refreshing.
        
        Of course, when you dress up for an interview, you are
        exploiting your appearance to improve the chances of getting
        the job.  When a software engineer designs software, she
        is exploiting her talent to make a living.  "Exploitation"
        is not by nature negative.  In this particular case, nobody,
        anywhere, is being hurt by this calendar.
        
        As to whether it's "art"... that's irrelevant.  In a casual
        stroll through any art museum, most anyone will identify
        a number of very attracive works... and many others which
        would seem to strain any rational definition of the word
        "art".  Does this mean they're *not* art?  Art is entirely
        subjective, there are no absolute standards.  To say that
        my calendar should be banned because it is not "art" is
        meaningless.
        
        So, I remove my calendar because it "offends" people.  Next,
        someone will inform me that they're offended by my kitten
        posters ("I'm in search of myself---have you seen me anywhere",
        and "Work fascinates me.  I can sit and look at it for hours"),
        and they too will go.  Then of course there's the documentation
        button, and several others.  No doubt the Aikido patch on
        my wall will bother someone.  Undoubtedly someone will dislike
        the color or style of my briefcase, my coat, my hair or clothes.
        Sooner or later, someone is bound to comment that they dislike
        me.  And it'll all be gone.  You'll have your empty, sterile
        cubical... and a lot of others.  What will have been
        accomplished?  What's so hard about simple acceptance that
        people are different, and absolute inflexible rules simply
        do not apply?
        
        If anyone does not wish to look at my calendar, they need
        not.  If there were someone who had need to regularly enter
        my office, and who strongly objected to the calendar, I would
        be willing to discuss the person's problem and might even
        consider removing it.  That, however, is not currently an
        issue.  In any case, it would not be an issue of "right"
        vs. "wrong", but a matter of concession to the comfort of
        a co-worker (and attempting to *make* it an issue of right
        vs. wrong would be the fastest way to guarantee that the
        calendar would stay).
        
        Incidentally, one person attempted to draw a parallel with
        smoking.  Invalid, unless the smoker is in an air-tight sealed
        office.  One has to look into my office to see the calendar.
        A smoker forces the pollution upon everyone in the building.
        There's a very large difference.
        
        	/dave

    Re: 25, and some others
    
    	I have never met a woman who was an established person (happy
    with herself) who found bathing suit calendars offensive.  The same
    goes for men I have met.  Semi-nude or nude people really shouldn't
    offend other people.  But, because of the imperfection of the world
    we live in, there are dictates of proper conduct in the office.
    So, each of us should do our best to respect the opinions and
    sensitivities of others.  However, we should work to explain our
    opinions when they run counter to those of others.  The individual
    has rights also.  Our's (the U.S.) is a country where the rights
    of the individual are protected.
    
    	One person's art can easily be another person's pornography.
    We can argue the 'art not art' positions forever and the answer
    will always be the same, different strokes for different folks.
    Also, we should not forget a lot of what is today 'the best art
    to come out of the Renaissance period' was created on contract because
    someone who could afford it wanted 'something' for the corner table
    or to cover the wall above the couch.  Art, in my opinion, is a
    creation which has survived.
    
    Douglas

    re 21:
    
    >I don't feel that my
    >having those posters was any different than someone else having
    >posters of sailboats, cars, Harleys, kittens or puppies.

    I don't want to debate about what you put up on your walls and whether
    I agree with it or not, but there *is* a difference between pictures of
    women - who are *people*, not objects, and objects like motorcycles and
    sailboats and even other living creatures.  And I do feel a lot
    differently about seeing pictures of women (dressed or not) on office
    walls (unless it's family members or well-known classical art) and seeing
    pictures of motorcycles or kittens.
    
    	-Ellen

    I think the heart of the matter is "is what I want to have/disply
    in my office appropriate the workplace", and whose definition of
    appropriate we are going to use!
    
    If we all used our own definitions, we might end up with
    a perfectly clean, sterile cubicle, next to a messy one with posters
    of nude people.  And very likely, each of them would be offensive
    to someone.  
    
    My concern with this issue is that the workplace (unless it is
    physically in a person's home) is *NOT* your home, and although
    you have certain territorial rights to your office/cube, it remains
    a public environment (i.e. anyone from KO on down has the right
    to enter).  It follows that choosing how to decorate your office
    must include a sensitivity to what is appropriate to *that*
    environment.  That may mean suppressing your desire to hang erotic
    Chinese drawings, or to leave dirty clothes strewn around the floor.
    It may also mean being accepting of someone else's taste.

    Professional conduct has always meant to me being able to keep personal
    preferences inside the bounds of professional environments.    

    I've NEXTed a few of these replies, because I mostly wanted
    to see if someone has responded to Dave's position (is that impersonal
    enough :-)) with my immediate reaction. So, here goes (goddess,
    keep me lucid :-)):
    
    I have absolutely no intention of trying to tell people what they
    should put up in their office. That's for wiser heads than mine.
    But BE AWARE of the potential affect, and why some people may be
    affected that way.
    
    Some women have been hurt cruelly by the way society objectifies
    women (rape is one of the easiest and most extreme examples). Once
    they've been slapped in the face with the horror, it sensitizes
    them to other forms of objectification (is that a noun???). And
    each one hurts, to some extent. Now obviously a woman isn't going
    to tell you she finds your poster/calendar/etc. offensive because
    she was raped once. It's embarassing, the connections are not logical,
    it would be tough to explain. It's probably tough to just mention
    the poster/etc. If you can understand and accept this, and still
    feel good about such displays, than that's up to you.
    	Mez

        .28: On the surface, this sounds perfectly reasonable.  The
        problem is... why are *you* defining what's appropriate?
        Where do you draw the line, and why?
        
        .29: Sorry, Mez... I can understand your point of view, but
        I don't agree.  First off, there's no rational connection
        between my calendar and anyone's rape.  Or with the
        "objectification" of women, for that matter (it's a dumb
        word, but, oddly enough, I think I like it :-)).  While I
        don't doubt that some people may imagine such a connection,
        that's not my responsibility.  Any more than it's my
        responsibility to quit my job and huddle in my house because
        some woman who's been raped might be bitter enough that the
        mere sight of a man is unpleasant to her.  I'm not insensitive:
        merely realistic.  If I change my life and surroundings to
        suit everyone who may be bothered by some facet of it, there'll
        be nothing left... certainly nothing enjoyable.
        
        Some people are bothered by calendars, some by jeans, some
        by long hair... you can't suit everyone.  You've got to draw
        the line somewhere.  I draw it at the point where what I
        do directly affects someone else.  I would never put a calendar
        in the middle of the main corridor (*any* sort of calendar)
        or on a public street, or in someone else's office.  When
        it's in *my* office, people are bothered by it only if they
        *choose* to be bothered by it... and that simply is not my
        concern.
        
        	/dave

    Dave, I think we partially agree. I was trying to say that if you
    understand and continue, it's your business. Which sounds like
    the same sort of philosophy you're getting at (each person responsible
    for their own actions/reactions). 
    
    BUT... You cannot claim all people only make rational connections.
    Or that rational connections hurt more than irrational connections.
    
    And if that's not what you're saying:
    > First off, there's no rational connection
    >    between my calendar and anyone's rape.
    
    What are you saying?
    	Mez

        .32: hard and quick discussion here, huh?  Gee, I'm glad
        DEC pays us to read WOMANNOTES all day  :-)
        
        Seriously, now...
        
        I didn't claim everyone makes rational connections... I even
        said so.  What I said is that I'm not responsible for anyone's
        irrational connections.  I'm not responsible for the fact
        that someone freaks out because the guy who murdered someone's
        brother was wearing the same sweater as I am... or because
        someone irrationally believes that a calendar with pictures
        of professional models has some relationship to a rape.
        
        Should we all start acting and looking identically to avoid
        problems like that?  Would that do any good?  I don't think
        so.
        
        The problem is that some people insist on pretending that
        my calendar is something other than what it is, that it has
        some deep and evil hidden meaning.  It's a bunch of
        *pictures*!!!!  Either you like them, or you don't... but
        they do no harm to anyone, and I can see no justification
        for believing otherwise.
        
        	/dave

    
    I think all of us would consider a tastefully done picture of the
    naked body art.  Just look at many old and famous paintings.
    I also think that many pictures in Playboy magazine are tastefully
    done and fall under the catagory of art.  Many others wouldn't.
    There are also other pictures of nude men and women that I feel
    are not art, however, I'm sure other people do.   So where do we
    draw the line.  Who is to say that one picture is art and another
    is not.  So ... I suggest that the line be drawn at allowing no
    pictures of naked women and men in the workplace.  I also suggest
    that pictures people feel are offensive be taken down.  Much the
    same as the smoking policy, if someone objects , the cigarette must
    be put out.  
    
    If we allow a "classic" picture from Playboy showing a naked women to
    be hung as art then why not a "classic" picture from Hustler showing a
    naked women.  (By classic I mean typical)  I'm sure most people
    would agree that pictures in Hustler are not art, however, how can
    anyone prove this point.  
    
    Paul
    

    			When we moved to our new building,
    		the people in our group were given their own
    		cubicles for the first time (prior to that, we
    		had our own desks but the workstations where 
    		we spent our lives were shared between the many
    		shifts we run.)  As a result, the walls tended
    		to be plastered with ugly papers filled with
    		useful but homely data like the contents of
    		hardware registers.  
    
    			When we moved, we were asked *NOT* to
    		put our ugly papers up on the walls in our nice
    		new building (quite a relief to the eyes, that's
    		for sure!)  
    
    			When I moved into MY cubicle, I decided
    		to test the waters for pictures and posters.  I
    		bought 4 beautiful posters (with heavy cardboard
    		backing so they would hang like pictures.)
    
    			My biggest (best) one is a night-time shot
    		of a famous observatory in Arizona -- they used time-
    		lapsed photography (or whatever it's called) to get
    		a sky FILLED with bolts of lightening!  It's quite
    		a picture (gets lots of comments.)  The others are:
    		a winter scene (with snow), a woods scene with a nice
    		brook, and a sky-scape of San Francisco.  
    
    			It turned out later that my cubicle (FOR SEVERAL
    		MONTHS) became the one cubicle in our group to be used
    		for Customer Demos.  (I had the only MICROVAX II in
    		our group, plus the only color VT.)  The Customer Demos
    		were attended by *BIG* customers of ours (as well as
    		a certain Vice President -- or is it Senior VP, I'm
    		not sure -- who is near and dear to our business.)
    
    			Am I glad I didn't feature Calanders of semi-
    		naked men?  You bet!!  (Not that I would anyway.)  I'm
    		just not personally into that sort of thing (although
    		I do have a calander at home that features NUDE PARROTS!)
    		                                                 :-)
    
    			To each his own -- no one in my group has
    		displayed calanders of partially-clad folks (and I doubt
    		if any of us will.)  We have to be sensitive to the
    		presence of customers who visit our site (because we
    		are nationally known to customers.)  We have adopted
    		a colorful (but tasteful by ANYONE'S STANDARDS) decor.
    		I'm not offended by /dave's cubicle, but I have to say
    		that it is a relief to be in a facility where we don't
    		have to worry about things like that (AT ALL!)
    
    			P.S. Oh yeah, there is one picture of a human
    		in my cubicle -- it's a cute shot of my son (at 9 years
    		old) in Hawaii.  It goes everywhere I work!  :-)  He's
    		wearing clothes.
    
    							Suzanne... :-)

        re -1:
    
        >It's a bunch of
        >*pictures*!!!!  Either you like them, or you don't... but
        >they do no harm to anyone, and I can see no justification
        >for believing otherwise.

    Is that was really true?  Do you know that for sure?  Why not take
    an anonymous poll of everyone who sees it in your office - "Do these
    pictures harm you?" (If the pictures offends, then is that the same as
    harming?  I think so, but I don't know how you mean the word 'harm'
    here).

    I, for one, feel they "objectify" the person in the picture and I
    think that harms me as a person and everyone else too, whether they're
    aware of it or not - sort of indirectly, since I'm not the objectified
    person in this case, but a little close for me since it's another person
    (male or female - I dislike male pinups just as much) - and I empathize
    with the person in the picture.

    And I don't know about the question of where to draw the line on
    such stuff.  But I think that if everyone behaved reasonably and
    kept in mind the principle of treating everyone with kindness in
    such things, then you would put up pictures or whatever in your
    office that were least likely to offend/harm others.
    
    I have postcards of mountains and a picture of my sisters in my
    office.  Does that offend anyone?  If it did offend someone who
    was a regular visitor to my office, I'd think about taking it down.

    	-Ellen

        Suzanne: unfortunately, special considerations do have to
        be made for customers... because people have an unreasonable
        tendency to judge capability on the basis of their own
        prejudices regarding appearance... and a customer's unreasonable
        opinion can lose Digital business.  Luckily, we don't get
        many customers in my area, so that's not a problem I have
        to worry about.  If we did, I suppose the pragmatic (however
        unreasonable) problems with image would have to take precedence.
        
        Ellen: It keeps coming back to the differences in definition,
        and I wonder if we're really talking about calendars at all.
        If you think my calendar harms you, what about my hair, or
        my clothes?  Should I remove them, as well? :-)
        
        What's so bad about nudes, anyway?  As the old saying goes...
        "if god had intended people to be naked, we'd have been born
        without... oops" 
        
        	/dave

    I've read so many "different" opinions about this subject and all
    I have to say is this:  If Ken Olsen got a glimpse of the Videotex
    Portrait of Cheryl Tiegs and he found out who put it in there, they
    would be out of a job.  That is not something "that promotes the
    welfare of employees in this company".  It is not "job related"
    and therefore should not be viewed on company time and should not
    be projected through Digital Equipment.
    
    

    Seems to me that pinups would be offensive to about half of the
    population and distracting to the other half.
    
    Definitely not work-related, or even "work conducive".
    
    (I have a poster of loons on a lake in my office:  very calming!)
     
    
    Holly

        I think we have several different issues tangled up in here:
        
        1. Some people dislike, shall we say, "revealing" pictures
           of people.
        
        2. Some people feel that an office is an inappropriate place
           for personal expression.
        
        These are separate issues.  In the case of the second point, it
        makes no difference whether the item in question is a calendar,
        a religious slogan, a button, a sweater, or a hair style.
        This issue is entirely outside the scope of WOMANNOTES.
        
        With reference to the first point... if it's unreasonable
        to display pictures which some people dislike, where does
        one draw the line?  You may dislike my clothes, my hair style,
        my manner of speaking... at what point do you feel you no
        longer have the right to impose your dislikes on my behavior?
        
        I would like to make one thing particularly clear... I do
        not mean to imply that nobody has a right to dislike my
        calendar, or that it's unreasonable to dislike it.  I'm simply
        saying that it is unreasonable to project that dislike on
        me.
        
        If a rape victim is hurt by an emotional response to a picture,
        I sympathize.  But the hurt is from the response, not from
        the picture... and any number of other things could have
        provoked the same response.  If I were to worry about avoiding
        anything which might "hurt" *anyone*, how could I even exist,
        much less work?  I'd really love to avoid bothering, much
        less "hurting", *anyone*... but life just doesn't work that
        way.  Shall I take a poll each morning to be sure the color
        of my shirt won't bother anyone?  That the screen colors
        of my VT241 are pleasant to everyone?
        
        I have worked with people who display items in their offices
        which I dislike.  I do not dislike the *people* because of
        this, nor do I complain about the presence of the items.
        They are simply words and pictures, and they can be ignored.
        Certainly I don't go out of my way to visit these people;
        but I have worked with them in their offices, and it's not
        all that hard to separate my personal feelings for their
        tastes from my personal and professional relationship with
        the people.  I find it extremely difficult to believe that
        distaste for a picture of a partially clad woman could be
        so much worse.
        
        	/dave
                                             

    I agree that in situations where customers may be present we should
    be somewhat "selective" regarding what we display on our walls.
    At the same time, I have to look back at the last company I worked
    for (one of our major competitors).  When I was hired, three years
    ago, the policy was to keep your cubicle organized.  Family pictures
    were 'tolerated', as well as pen holders, awards, etc.  (My monkey
    calendar would never have been allowed! :^))   Before I left,
    the new rule became "clean desk policy."  When you left to go home
    at night NOTHING but a PHONE could be on your desk!  The photo of
    your family had to be tucked away in the drawer along with everything
    else.  Just how "selective" should we become?
         
    Kelly

    I walked into a male's cube for the first time on business.  I was
    stopped dead by a huge, (and I mean huge!), poster of the body of
    a woman wearing what women don't really wear but what men like to
    see.
    
    The male in question saw the brief surprise on my face and chuckled
    and hoped I didn't mind if he had hung up my picture!  Well that
    lumped me with her and sure gave me a clear idea of what he though
    of women.  I felt like a Jew reading Nazi literature.  His smirk
    made me feel very self-conscious to say the least.
    
    Men's early arguments against women in the workplace was that they
    would introduce a sexual aspect which didn't belong there.  This
    guy, (and others who display nudes), introduced the sexual aspect
    himself and this poster hangs to do it "passively" for him.
    
    So it isn't a question of art, or even of personal freedom.  It's
    a question of power.  That old game of sex gave all the power to men 
    at the expense of women and men who are uncomfortable dealing with
    women as people-on-business reduce those encounters to that old game 
    of sex to give themselves that old comfortable feeling of power.
    It's a security blanket for them - a pacifier.  The same game is
    being played when men call a woman 'honey'.  They're reducing her
    from business colleague, (and threat), to powerless prey in the sexual 
    arena.
    
    So rationalize all you want guys, and defend your freedom of speech
    to the hilt but there are sufficient off-hours in the work-week
    to engage in that old game of sex in ALL of its manifistations.  Those 
    who insist on bringing that world into the work world have another 
    agenda entirely.
    

Dave,

I understand your point, but I think there more to it than you realize.

Your poor much maligned calendar in itself may not be that bad, but it 
is a symbol of the 'ojectifaction'(sp? love that word) that woman have
had to deal with since birth, it is a symbol in a way of many of the
second class status put downs we have all have to deal with on an all
to frequent basis. Now although I might not like the color of your 
sweater or your kitten posters, they are not symbols of anything. And
that makes all the difference, might not make sense, but there you have
it.

And I believe that you are justified in saying that no one has the right
to tell you what to wear or think, ect. The point I'm trying to make
is they really AREN'T just pictures, not to me and proebely not to alot
of woman. I am not even saying the reaction is a strong one, (some varieties
of pin-up calendar are worse in this 'ojectifation') than others, but 
their is a negative reaction.

I have this same argument with my husband, he just doesn't understand
why it bothers me either...

-vicki

    re: last two

I don't think the question is of what is art and what is pornography, but
at what point does something become sexist?  

Most pornography (and X movies) are sexist because they portray women in more 
detail than men.  Thus saying that somehow it is okay to take advantage of a 
woman, but not a man (or at least saying that you treat them differently).  Tell
me how many of the men in the Hawaii calendar are wearing see-thru trunks?
How often do you see a frontal view of a man's anatomy?  Even given that
there are pin-ups of both sexes, how often do you see both sexes in the
same pin-up?  Also, it is only very recently that we've seen any male
pin-ups at all.  And they too are sexist.  Pin-ups are saying "I like to look
at people of this sex becuase they have a good looking body, I don't care
about their brain or other accomplishments".  This becomes offensive when you 
bring them into a work environment because people do not know if your
attitude about bodies extends to them.  And work requires going into your 
office to work with you.

As to graphic images, there is nothing inherent in a picture of a
scantily clad woman that will prove some type of graphic ability of your
software or hardware.  That along with the absence of any male pictures
makes it sexist.

I am not offended by pictures of nude or partially nude women, I am offended
by what they portray women as (objects).  Maybe individuals who like to look
at these pictures do not feel the women in them are objects, but since that was
the intent of the picture, how will others know about the individual's attitude?
Yes, a woman's body is a beautiful thing, but it has been used too often to 
portray women in an inferior position in society.  


...Karen

p.s. I particulary object to Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue becuase they
are using sex to sell their magazine.  I'd be surprised if any of those
women are skilled swimmers.  So what else is SI's objective in publishing
them?  Is it a sport?

    This note has gotton off-course to a degree, though it has been a
    useful digression. The question of what appears on one's walls is a
    subset of the base note: the Cheryl Tiegs image is on the net, & as
    such is part of the collection of images available throughout the
    corporation . I am working on graphics for our group now, & sure enough
    I found the note pointing to the directory & a filename CHERYL.DAT. 
    
    This is not the same as a poster in an office. No matter how you
    try to talk around it, the Network is a public forum. It is not
    an office, or your private domain. It is part of the DIGITAL community.
    Why is there so much heated discussion about removing the image? 
                                                      
    A lot of the men responding here have this idea that if you object to
    nude/semi-nude pictures, you are violating their rights. To this I can
    only agree with others that your office space is not your private turf
    where you may act with impunity. How adament would you be if KO showed
    up & objected? Would you stand firm & tell him it was your right to
    hang pinups in your office? Would you give up your job rather than take
    down your poster? I doubt it. This kind of "free speech" is based on
    expedient sexism that would fall to pieces at the first real challenge.
    All of the men supporting these posters should send KO a memo stating
    they have them & will keep them. I challenge you to try it. 
                                                      
    The other objection, which is a more of an ultimatum, is the inference
    that people who object to pictures of "naked women" are dithering
    puritains who "can't handle it." In other words, "if you don't agree
    with me your values, particulary your sexual values, are backward at
    best & repressive at worst." There is no middle ground offered or
    accepted, & no matter how we might respond the fact that we object
    to such posters on the net or in an office only reinforces this
    belief. 
      
    If this indeed is the case, I submit the following question: How many
    men would be offended (outraged?) if a gay co-worker hung a nude male
    poster in his office? Could you ignore it? Now I'm not talking about a
    porno poster here, but an "art" photo (more on that later). Would you
    feel comnfortable working in such an office? Frankly I wouldn't, not
    because I dislike gays but because I would feel that perhaps I had been
    "sized up," and the benchmark is the poster on the wall. That may not
    be the actual case, but that would be my impression. Which is the point
    I'm trying to make: the pinup showing a woman in a swimsuit (or less)
    is a statement, & women cannot help but draw inferences from it, no
    matter what you might say. When such images are available over the net,
    we cannot help but draw inferences about the company itself. 
    
    I don't think the answer is to scan a male pinup of Redford. All that
    does is validate the motives for scanning the "Cheryl" image. I
    don't really like the "male pinup" calendars I've seen in some women's
    offices, again, not because I can't "handle" the picture (I don't
    really care per se), but because she is making a statement about
    her preferences in the office. 
    
    This may seem contradictory, but in the privacy of your home all
    bets are off. I would no more suggests how to decorate your home
    than I would proscribe any "practices." That is not the issue here,
    & I see no reason to get into the larger & more complex issue of
    pornography, freedom of speech, etc. Suffice it to say you live
    your life at home as you like. I just don't care to participate
    in it in the office (or on the net).
    
    The most ludicrous part of this discussion is the debate on the
    "art" value of images. Believe it or not there is some criterea
    for classifying an image as "art" & a Cheryl Tiegs poster, or 
    the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, does not meet this criterea.
    If you want to fall back on the objection that "the value of art
    is relative" or "in the eye of the beholder" I suggest you take
    Art Appreciation 101 and 102 over again & try to understand what
    people mean when they talk about art. Nude photos by Ansel Adams,
    Judy Dater, etc. can be called art. Playboy photos, no matter how
    "tasteful," are not art (note that we must use the adjective tasteful
  to qualify these photos in the first place). Your personal tastes,
    which are as limited, narrow, & provincial as my own, do not qualify
    you or most others as "art critics." Yes there is popular art &
    yes there is poster art, but the current rash of swimsuit posters
    or pinup photos could easily be taken by any number of qualified
    professional photographers, whereas Ansel Adams' style cannot be
    recreated month after month in a centerfold. If it were possible
    I would be an avid, devoted Playboy subscriber. 
    

	RE:  .37
    
    
     >   Suzanne: unfortunately, special considerations do have to
     >   be made for customers... because people have an unreasonable
     >   tendency to judge capability on the basis of their own
     >   prejudices regarding appearance... and a customer's unreasonable
     >   opinion can lose Digital business.  
    
    		Who said anything about it being unreasonable to find
    	   pin-ups objectionable in an office environment?
    
    		Personally, I've never objected before -- but after
    	   reading all these various arguments about why women shouldn't
    	   be offended by seeing pictures of semi-nude women on office
    	   walls, it's starting to get to me!
    
    		If you think it is OK to put any sort of picture that
    	   appeals to you (regardless of the implications that it may
    	   have for others), then what if you decided to hang up a
    	   "tastefully done" representation of black people as slaves?
    	   (I realize that the idea is a contradiction in terms, of
    	   course.)  But what if you felt you could justify it on the
    	   basis of the fact that *you personally* are not prejudice
    	   (you just happen to think that the bodies in the picture
    	   are beautiful and that the picture constitutes art.)
    
    		Do you think that your black co-workers would mind
    	   walking into your office and seeing members of their race
    	   depicted in such a humiliating way?
    
    		How about if the Sports Illustrated calender had a
    	   month in it that showed a gorgeous blonde model in a bikini
    	   clutching a Nazi swastika?  Do you think that Jewish folks
    	   in your building might take offense?  (Probably just about
    	   EVERYONE would take offense to that *as well* as to the
    	   pictures of black slaves.)  For the SAME REASONS, many
    	   people are offended by pin-ups of semi-nude women.
    
    		Your shirt and your hair are not recognized symbols
    	   of prejudice and/or oppression.  Pictures of black slaves,
    	   swastikas and *YES* pin-ups *ARE SYMBOLS* (as someone
    	   said earlier.)  
    
    		The fact that you *KNOW* this and insist on displaying
    	   pictures of semi-nude women in your office *ANYWAY* -- well,
    	   don't you think that says something about your attitude
    	   towards your co-workers?  (Or maybe just that you didn't
    	   think it through very well.)
    
    		Myself, I have *never ever* seen a pin-up in a Digital
    	   facility.  Until this note, I never had any idea that such
    	   things were tolerated at DEC.  I've seen pictures of VAX's
    	   and family members (plus cars, outdoor scenes and cartoons.)
    	   
    		The fact that the CSC is an environment that is visited
    	   by customers is a BIG PLUS as far as I'm concerned (if it
    	   means that we don't have to worry about offensive pictures
    	   being displayed.)  
    
    		If you think nudity is so great, have you considered
    	   showing up at ZK in the buff?  :-)  Why not??  Why should
    	   you let other people dictate your appearance -- why not
    	   scoff at them for making judgments about you simply because
    	   you are "open" enough to show up for work in the nude?
    
    		Why indeed??  Well, because this is a place of business
    	   and some things just are *NOT APPROPRIATE HERE*!
    
    							Suzanne...
    
    		

>    		If you think it is OK to put any sort of picture that
>    	   appeals to you (regardless of the implications that it may
>    	   have for others), then what if you decided to hang up a
>    	   "tastefully done" representation of black people as slaves?
>    	   (I realize that the idea is a contradiction in terms, of
>    	   course.)  But what if you felt you could justify it on the
>    	   basis of the fact that *you personally* are not prejudice
>    	   (you just happen to think that the bodies in the picture
>    	   are beautiful and that the picture constitutes art.)
        
        Well, Suzanne, at the very least, you've managed to make
        the best argument yet.
        
        However, I don't believe it's relevant.  Even simply in terms of
        symbology, regardless of rights to personal expression or
        artistic merit... a picture explicitly depicting blacks as
        slaves (what if it's a ROOTS poster, anyway?), or Nazi
        swastikas, has explicitly declared itself as a symbol. Were my
        calendar to depict women being raped, or women barefoot and
        pregnant huddling over a stove, I might agree there was some
        basis to the analogy.  But that's not the case.  Any analogy
        anyone might draw between pictures of women wearing bathing
        suits and oppression/vicimization of women is purely in their
        heads, and in no way inherent in the picture. 
        
        Symbols are like art... subjective, and often irrational.
        Several people have argued that my sweater or hair don't
        constitute symbols, while my calendar does.  Ha!  They may
        not be symbols to *you*... but there are people who consider
        hair---or fashion in general---to be quite strong symbols.

        What if I chose to wear an earring, and someone was offended by
        the sight of a man wearing an earring?  What if they consider
        that earring a symbol of rebellion, violence, or homosexuality,
        and they are bothered by that symbolism?  What if I lived in
        Detroit and the auto workers were offended by my foreign car,
        and took that as a symbol of various things they dislike? It's
        been made quite clear in this conference that for some women,
        *men* are a symbol of something bad.  I suppose we should all
        kill ourselves so those women don't have to be subjected to such
        nasty symbols? 
        
        Even after my explanation, I still see people claiming that
        I'm objecting to the fact that people dislike my calendar,
        or that they're offended by it.  That's really not true at
        all.  My point is simply that you make your own symbols,
        and I make mine.  *You* have no right to define *my* symbols
        for me... or to project your symbols on my life.  If I choose
        to wear an earring, or long hair, or drive a Subaru, it is
        of no concern to you and has no connection with your symbols,
        whatever they may be.
        
        If a man posts a picture of a nude woman, makes it clear
        that he considers that picture and all women equivalent,
        and that they are objects... then it's the man's *attitude*,
        not his picture, which is offensive: and removing the picture
        won't change that attitude.  There are neither women nor
        objects on my calendar: only *pictures* of women.  However
        much you may attempt to assign symbolic value to them, there
        is none.
        
        	/dave
                             

            RE:  .50
    
    			I realize that this is turning into a
    		rathole, but I disagree with your stand on this
    		issue /dave.  I still contend that pin-ups of
    		semi-naked women are more similar to pictures
    		of black slaves and Nazi swastikas (than they
    		are to your personal choice of shirt color,
    		hair style or automobile.)  If that were not
    		the case, after all, we'd be writing notes
    		complaining about your shirts instead of your
    		calendar (WOULD WE NOT??)  :-)

    			I'm sure we will never agree on this one,
    		but I can bet you that if we asked Personnel to
    		settle it *FOR* us, your calander would be out
    		on the sidewalk looking for a new home.  :-)
    
    						Suzanne....

>    			I'm sure we will never agree on this one,
>    		but I can bet you that if we asked Personnel to
>    		settle it *FOR* us, your calander would be out
>    		on the sidewalk looking for a new home.  :-)
        
        This may or may not be true, but even if so, it's irrelevant.
        The fact that they might do it would not make it right.
        
        One thing we do agree on is that this is a rat-hole.  I think
        the topic is pretty well dead.  I never asked anyone to agree
        with my taste... only with my right to express my taste.
        I'm disappointed with the general lack of tolerance for other
        viewpoints... but arguing that isn't going to help, either.
        
        	/dave

    		RE:  .52
    
    			I was teasing you about sending your
    		poor little calander out onto the sidewalk...  :-)
    
    			The point I was aiming at was that it is
    		not ultimately up to you *OR* me *OR* other noters
    		to decide what is or is not offensive (and what
    		is or is not a "symbol" of prejudice) at DEC.
    
    			This is not your home or mine -- this is
    		where we work.  This is not the place to test our
    		definitions of "offensive" by insisting on being
    		offensive to others out of principle.  Whether or
    		not it is your intention to *be* offensive with
    		your calander, you are being exactly that (and you
    		know it) to many people who have expressed opinions
    		about pin-ups in this conference.
    
    			Outside of work, have a ball.  Line your
    		whole house with nudie pictures and no one will
    		care!  But at work, you don't have the right to
    		impose offensive material on others that work at
    		DEC (no matter what YOUR definition is of offensive.)
		It is *NOT* more acceptable for you to shove your
    		ideas of symbols on others (by saying nudies are
    		NOT symbols) than it is for people to shove their
    		ideas on you (by saying that nudies ARE symbols.)
    
    			With a few word substitutions, your arguments
    		would make a perfect case for displaying a swastika
    		at work.  DEC as your employer has the right to define
    		the symbols you are allowed to display at DEC facilities.
    		If they told you to '86' the calander, what choice would
    		you have?  (And why would it be wrong of DEC to do that?
    		They didn't guarantee you when they hired you that you
    		could look at naked bodies all day.)
    
    			My whole point is that this is a WORKPLACE!
    		If others find a certain decoration in your office
    		(that has nothing to do with how you do your job)
    		offensive, then why insist on having it?  I don't
    		see why anyone would disregard others' feelings like
    		that.
    
    			This is not against you or anything -- I just
    		think that maybe this once you should reconsider about
    		setting up work as the proper place to fight this
    		particular battle.

    							Suzanne...

    	RE:  .54
    
    			Recent articles I've read about Ken Olsen
    		lead me to believe that the *last* thing he would
    		want is for us to sell our computers by giving our
    		customers a cheap thrill by exploiting the sexual
    		attractiveness of women.

    			I don't believe it for a single minute
    		and never will that DEC has to sink that low (or
    		would want to!!)  Not even to beat IB*!!
    
    							Suzanne...
    

    o Given: it is possible that some people will find any given photograph
    or calendar or art work objectionable.
    
    o Given: it is possible that some people will find any given photograph
    or calendar or art work to be calming/interesting/inspiring/amusing,
    or otherwise unobjectionable.
    
    o Given: in a workplace, an atmosphere of polite respect for the
    feelings of co-workers and visiting customers tends to promote a
    happier working environment than if one knowingly ignores those
    feelings.
    
    o Suggestion: Do not assume that because someone decorates his/her
    office area with something you don't approve of, it automatically
    means the worst. If you think the item so offensive that it might
    damage the image of the company in the eyes of customers or upper
    management, say so to the owner, but without being accusatory. If
    you don't think it's that bad but it does offend you, you may decide
    whether to say so to the owner or not, realizing there isn't much
    you can do if the owner declines to remove it. If you wonder why
    an otherwise decent sort would display something you find offensive,
    ask - again, without being accusatory. 
    
    Yes, there is sexism in the world, and yes, some people will leer and
    drool over pinup photos; but I don't think it's very pleasant - or true
    - to assume that everyone who likes to look at pinups is a dehumanizing
    sexist creep. 

    -b

    	RE:  .56
    
    			Agreed with many of your points -- and I
    		certainly don't feel that everyone who enjoys pin-ups
    		is a dehumanizing sexist creep!  (I know of one
    		person right off the bat that I *KNOW* is not anything
    		of the kind and yet enjoys pin-ups.)
    
    			If my picture of the Kitt Peak National
    		Observatory (beneath a sky full of lightening) was
    		offensive to someone, I would remove it. 
    
    			If one of my co-workers came to me (for
    		example) and said that his or her spouse had died
    		from having been hit by lightening and found my
    		picture a sore reminder, I'd take it down on the
    		spot (and put it up at home.)
    
    			It's about respect for the feelings and
    		the comfort of others.  
    
    			Another thing to consider is that DEC is
    		*very* much against sexism!!  We can't keep from
    		hiring sexists, but we can certainly keep from
    		having sexist behavior hit us in face when we show
    		up to do work.  It's against corporate policy.
    
    			I just think that it's wrong to flaunt
    		offensive behavior (or posters) on the grounds
    		of freedom of thought.
    
    						Suzanne...

    	RE:  .58
    
    			Good grief!!  You think that having "few
    		women engineers" is a good reason to have an office
    		decor that is more suitable for men (which means
    		pin-ups, etc?)  What *ABOUT* those few women
    		engineers -- ever thought of how much more isolated
    		they might feel in that environment?
    
    			I wasn't the first one to express negative
    		feelings about pin-ups -- the first notes to that
    		effect came from the East Coast (your area) if I'm
    		not mistaken.
    
    			When the note started, I didn't care about
    		pin-ups (one way or the other.)  I read all the notes
    		pro and con (and took a stand after seeing the
    		arguments from both sides.)
    
    			This file teaches me something new almost
    		every day!!  :-)
    
    							Suzanne...

    I'm also surprised, Suzanne, that you've never *seen* any pin-ups
    at DEC!  Have you ever been in a manufacturing facility??  I used
    to work in one as a secretary.  There were a lot more guys than
    women there and there were a lot of pin-up posters of women.  It
    didn't bother me unless I actually saw a group of guys drooling
    over it and making obnoxious comments to the effect that if they
    could go out with a woman who looked like that they certainly wouldn't
    care what other qualifications she had - such as personality, brains,
    compassion, education, etc.  I said to one guy, "Yeah, but has she
    read any good books lately?"  The guy said, "Who the f*** gives
    a s**t!"
    
    I worked in one engineering group for 4 1/2 yrs. and for awhile
    I had a picture of the "solarflex man" (sp?) on my wall.  He's pulling
    his shirt off over his head and you can't see his face, only his
    extremely gorgeous chest.  (He was cute, but I'd still rather go
    to lunch with Woody Allen, if you know what I mean.  I can't just
    stare at a chest forever.)  Anyway, the men I worked with used to
    say things like, "Who the heck is he supposed to be?"  Really resentful
    of his good looks.  I found it funny for awhile.  Then, I got sick
    of it and took it down.
    
    Of course, now I'm too aware for that sort of thing! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    	RE:  .60
    
    			Lorna -- now I'm *really* starting to
    		get disallusioned about DEC.  I really and truly
    		have never seen a pin-up anywhere at DEC.  (I'd
    		seen them at other places I worked in the 70's
    		-- I desensitized myself from it because I was
    		in a so-called "male dominated profession" and
    		felt I had no choice.)
    
    			I've worked in 4 DEC facilities in the
    		West (2 of them right here in the Springs.  We
    		moved recently from the plant to our own building.)
    		I never saw them in the plant either (but then, I
    		didn't go poking around outside my own group much.)
    
    			In the East, I've spent most of my time
    		in Bedford (at the Field Service training facility.)
    		Customers go there, too, so they don't have pin-ups.
    
    			I guess I've seen a better side of DEC than
    		some others have (and I've been working for DEC for
    		over 5 years.)  Of course, being in the Field until
    		I came here, I spent the majority of my time with
    		customers (so I tended to idealize DEC a great deal
    		in my mind and theirs.)  
    
    			I like to think that I wasn't really that
    		far off in my thinking....  Y'know?  :-)
    
    							Suzanne...

    Suzanne:
    
    	If you have not seen pictures of semi naked women in various
    Bedford cubicles then you have not looked in enough Bedford cubicles.
    It is possible your visit(s) to Bedford did not afford you the time
    to do much roaming in the site IS area, for example, or the site
    printing area.  The pictures are there, or were 18 months ago.
    
    	Your analogy between black slavery/Nazi Germany and pictures
    of naked women trivializes the lessons available from the ugliness
    of the former.  There are many societies where nudity does not
    freighten the populace the way it does in the U.S.  I agree with
    the arguement relative to the *potential* sexism issue and I also
    recognize DEC can and does dictate employee ethics - both in and
    out of the workplace.  However, black slavery and Nazism (sp?) resulted
    in the muder of millions of innocent people.  At worst pictures
    of naked women promote sexism. Fighting sexism may be very difficult
    but it can be fought by the individual since it does not result in 
    murder.
    
    Douglas

    Re .48: despite your protestations there are no  objective  criteria 
    for   defining  art  that  are  stable  over  time.   This  is  what 
    distinguishes an art from a  science  (all  sciences  have  absolute 
    laws,  though  they may not be fully understood at present, arts are 
    defined by bodies of rules that are unstable over time, and  largely 
    qualitative   and   subjective   in  nature).   References  to  "Art 
    Appreciation 101" (whatever that may be, I  presume  it  is  another 
    American cultural intrusion) not withstanding.
    
    I made reference to this instability in a previous reply in pointing 
    out that pictures considered pornographic in Victorian times are now 
    highly  saught  after  as  art  work.   If   you   object   to  this 
    classification  then  I  suggest you take it up with the cataloguing 
    departments of Sotheby's and Christie's (who I believe are qualified 
    as art critics). 
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    (Ian F. Philpott, MIIP, LRPS)
    
    - yes  I am technically, and professionally qualified as a critic of 
    photographic art.

    <---.57
    
>			I just think that it's wrong to flaunt
>    		offensive behavior (or posters) on the grounds
>    		of freedom of thought.
           
    Suzanne,
    
    I think that what you really mean could be more precisely stated
    (in light of what you wrote above this comment):
    
    		I just think that it's wrong to flaunt behaviour
    		(or posters) that offend someone, on the grounds
    		of freedom of thought.
    
    Dave's whole point is that his calendar is not *inherently*
    offensive--that the offense is in the eye of the beholder.  You
    are suggesting that the real answer to the question of
    appropriateness will be found, not in absolute standards of
    offensiveness, but in the much gentler principles of courtesy
    and consideration to co-workers (and, sometimes, relations with
    customers).  And I certainly wouldn't argue with that point.
    
	-Neil

    One  of  the  models  for  this  year's  Sports Illustrated swimwear 
    callendar was interviewed on one of the morning TV shows today,  and 
    she  made  a  very  strong case of the fact that what appears on the 
    callendar is NOT her, it is a PICTURE of her.
    
    Also that she sees modelling as a career akin to any other.
    
    I have a feeling that some people who object  (not  perhaps  all  of 
    them) to "pin up" callendars and posters are inherently, and perhaps 
    subconciously looking down on the  models who pose for them.
    
    Remember it is not that long ago that ALL actresses where classified 
    as prostitutes...
            
    I recall  once having a conversation on a similar subject that ended 
    with this exchange
    
    Q: what to they do it for?
    
    A: About $1000 and 5% of the gross...
    
    /. Ian .\
    

    Doug Williams, I BEG to differ with you!
    
    To say that slavery and Nazi-ism, (is that a word?), are serious
    issues and the bondage of women is "trivial" by comparison is blatantly
    wrong.  The bondage of women DOES INDEED result in murder, where
    have you been?  Close to ALL women who are murdered are murdered
    by MEN, (close to all PEOPLE who are murdered are murdered by men,
    but the reasons are very different - so let's deal with murdered
    women).
    
    Rape and murder of women occur because men have been socialized to 
    believe that sex is synonymous with women.  Women and sex are the
    exact same thing to many men, and coupled with the fact that men
    think sex is their inalienable right, it follows that they feel
    WOMEN are their inalienable right.  Whatever they choose to do with
    them is just fine, and if society agrees that women will be kept
    at an economic disadvantage, (like ours does), then for a price
    you CAN get women to shed their dignity and their clothes.  So that 
    she can feed herself and pay her rent you can get her to say to you that
    she doesn't even HAVE any dignity!  Find enough of these women and put 
    them all together on the magazine stand, in the commercials, on billboards, 
    in posters, in sporting events, (gotta have those cheerleaders!), ad 
    nauseum, and soon the American guy gets the idea that women are just 
    tit-owners and the question of female dignity seems almost moot.
    
    With what looks like "all" women openly parading themselves competing
    for men's approval, one woman demanding dignity could easily enrage
    a man into thinking she's simply sneering at him.  "Why won't she
    put out"? he wonders, (he really DOESN'T know!), and his rage turns to 
    violence.  She has denied him what society has told him is his
    personal candy store.  Oh yes, the bondage of women DOES result in
    murder.  You want statistics? I'm so sure of this I'll GET you stat-
    istics - you'll be surprised. 
    
    So a man who likes to look at women as his personal candy is going
    to defend that desire under any guise at all, and freedom of speech
    is the in vogue one right now.
    
    As long as our society condones men's bodies as being private and
    women's bodies as being public domain, men are going to have respect
    for the privacy of men's bodies and no respect for the privacy of
    women's - ANY woman's.   And the element of human respect makes
    a BIG difference in a borderline situation where rape and/or murder
    can take place.               

    
>    As long as our society condones men's bodies as being private and
>    women's bodies as being public domain, men are going to have respect
>    for the privacy of men's bodies and no respect for the privacy of
>    women's - ANY woman's.   And the element of human respect makes
>    a BIG difference in a borderline situation where rape and/or murder
>    can take place.               

    Yes!!  *That's* why pin-ups are sexist.  It isn't equal.  Female pin-ups
    abound in our society and there are only a *few* *isolated* instances of
    male pin-ups.  Pin-ups say that women's bodies are public (and the
    male pin-ups say the same about men).

    No, I shouldn't be offended by one isolated instance of someone's
    pin-ups in their office.  But it's all around me.  When you're bombarded
    with it in movies, in commercials, in magazines, on calendars, in beauty
    contests, etc.  A message comes accross.   Society is telling me that
    it is okay to display a woman's body (and to use it to sell) but it is
    *not* okay to do the same for men.  And that's sexist.  So I object to
    every instance of it now until it is no longer accepted that a woman's
    body can be used that way.

    ...Karen

    re 62:
    
    >	Your analogy between black slavery/Nazi Germany and pictures
    >of naked women trivializes the lessons available from the ugliness
    >of the former.
    
    	I don't think Naziism and racism are more ugly than sexism.
        They are equally ugly.

	If you look at what Nazis did to Jews and what the white people
        did to blacks people, it does not differ all *that* much from what
    	men have done to women through the centuries.  A very small list
    	as I know there are dozens more examples:

		neither blacks nor women were not allowed to vote
    		harassment (physical and emotional)
		Jews in pre-WWII Germany were not allowed to own
    			property/neither were women until this century/
    			neither were black people
		Jews were confined to ghettos/women have been confined to
			"employment ghettos" - secretarial, nursing, etc.
    			In more extreme cases "the bedroom and the kitchen".
		slavery - both black slaves and wives were considered
    			"property".
		beatings
    		consider the way people have viewed "date rape" up until
    			recently and consider the way it was "normal"
    			and "okay" to harass Jews in pre-WWII Germany
   			and how it was just fine to lynch a black man in
    			Georgia in 1890 for no cause.
		and finally, yes, murder

        Racism, sexism, Naziism - call them all the same thing under another
        name - a lack of respect for the individual.
    
    >There are many societies where nudity does not
    >freighten (sic) the populace the way it does in the U.S.

    My boyfriend would be very surprised to learn that nudity "frightened"
    me.  I don't think that it "frightens" any of the women in this
    file who have objections to pin-ups.  Listen to what we are saying.
    My first impression of someone (whether it's right or wrong) who
    has pin-ups on his or her wall is that he or she sees the opposite sex
    as a sex object.  Someone used the term "distancing".  That is exactly
    what happens with me.  I feel very distanced from the individual with
    the pin-ups on the wall.  It makes me uncomfortable, because of the
    objectification that *I* (and many -maybe most -other women) see in
    the pictures.
    
    And the argument about them being "just pictures" doesn't wash either.
    There are pictures and movies in X-rated theatres and bookstores
    that depict women in bondage and being murdered.  They're just
    "pictures" too, right?
    
    	-Ellen

    	No where do I argue in favor of 'pin ups.'  I neither purchase
    nor read 'men's' magazines.  I am not condoning treating women as
    sex objects.  I am saying Nazi Germany murdered milliosn of people
    because of their religion, skin color, physical health, etc.  Black
    people were bought and sold, being treated as no more than cattle.
    They were also murdered in *large* numbers because of their skin
    color.  As a result of sexism, many woman have been treated very
    badly and forced into a type of slavery, though I question that
    this slavery can be comfortably compared with the treatment of blacks.
    
    	I also recognize women were not allowe to vote or own land until
    1911 (I believe).  Do you realize men who did not own land could
    not vote until late in the 19th century?  That the landed gentry
    in the U.S. worked hard at keeping certain ethnic groups down (the
    Irish, for example, lived in a walled area of Boston for many years
    and were allowed to leave the area only to go to work).
    
    	Women were treated very badly.  So were many ethnic groups,
    though the poor treatment of women has lasted much longer than that
    of most ethnic groups.
    
    	However, the plight of women in the U.S. is not and has never
    been on a level with Jews in German controlled Europe during the
    2nd World War.  Nor can I accept an arguement suggesting the plight
    of women is or ever was - in the U.S. - on a level with blacks during
    the period of slavery or even through the 1960's.  Yes, women were
    treated as second class citizens, and still are to some extent but
    were they hanged in large numbers?  Murdered in numbers too large
    for most of us to comprehend?
    
    	I have no arguement against the reality of the way women have
    been treated in the U.S. but to compare their plight with those
    of the slaves or the peoples Hitler's Germany attempted to eradicate
    trivializes history.
    
    Douglas

    
    Re. 66
    
    This may be drifting from the topic but ....
    
    You make it sound as if an average normal man can be driven to rape
    and murder from seeing pin_ups and pictures of naked women.
    
    People who murder and rape are sick, mentally ill, they would commit
    the acts that they do if there were pin-ups or not.   I agree that
    TV and other mediums portray women as sex objects, and I feel that
    is wrong, however, I don't think this had driven anyone to murder
    that wouldn't have committed murder anyways.
    
    AND I don't think pin-ups at DEC are going to cause anyone to rape
    and murder either,  however,  I do feel they are unprofessional
    and should not be in the work place.
    
    Paul

	RE: .70

	Maybe women were never muredered en masse, but you can't trivialize
	the "ownership" of women that has existed.  Men were allowed to
	rape/beat/ treat women anyway they like and it was condoned in
	society.  It is still condoned in some parts of society in the U.S.
	While working with the "Coalition for Choice", I heard of a young
	girl being raped by her brother.  It was okay for men in that
	family (and that culture) to do that because women are not worth
	anything.  And until recently, (and still in some cases) women
	were made to be the guilty part in rape cases.  She must have
	done something to cause it.  It is very hard to get rape conviction
	in this country given the current attitude towards women.


	And when will people see women as people when there is so much out
	there that makes them objects?

	...Karen

    Re: 72
    
    	I agree.  My comments were directed at the comparison of sexism
    with black slavery and the actions of the Nazis during WWII.  My
    comments were not meant to include an opinion or analysis of sexism.
    
    Douglas

    	RE:  .73
    
    			Since I was the one who brought up Nazi
    		swastikas and representations of black slaves, I'd
    		like to add a comment.
    
    			I did it (mostly) to give examples of 
    		emotionally-loaded "SYMBOLS" that everyone could
    		understand (to help illustrate the kind of emotional
    		impact nudie pictures have on many women.)
    
    			Prior to my note, nudie pictures were being
    		given the same level of significance as a hair style
    		or the color of one's shirt.  I wanted to point out
    		that there is *MUCH* more to the symbolic nature
    		of nudie pictures (in terms of throwing reminders
    		of oppression right into our faces where we work.)
		
    			Basically, I was making an anology.  (It *IS*
    		important to note, however, that prejudice is preju-
    		dice -- no matter who the victims are and regardless
    		of the extent of their suffering as a group.)  Saying
    		that the oppression of women is less significant than
    		the oppression of blacks or Jews (at the hands of the
    		Nazis) is missing the whole point.
    
    			Do we have to die in the millions before people
    		are willing to acknowledge that our oppression is part
    		of the same wrong that was inflicted on the blacks and
    		the Jews?  Do we not deserve the same sort of considera-
    		tion that you would give to blacks (by not displaying
    		pictures of slaves) and to Jews (by not displaying the
    		swastika)??
    
    			Whether or not you (or anyone) sees nudie 
    		pictures as symbols of the oppression of women, *MANY
    		WOMEN* see them as such.  
    
    			Is it really that difficult for some people
    		to make it through the day without being able to see
    		the naked body of strangers at every turn of the head?
    		(Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that some people are
    		that dependent on constant visual/sexual stimulation?)
    		Does it help anyone write better code to be surrounded
    		by pictures of naked women all day?  (Is it worth the
    		discomfort that it causes co-workers?)
    
    			It makes no sense to me at all.

    							Suzanne...

    re .70:
    
    >Black people were bought and sold, being treated as no more than
    >cattle.
    
    So were women, and still are in some cultures of the world.  What
    about women and dowries in India?  Women, just as slaves, were
    considered property and still are in some parts of the world.
    
    >However, the plight of women in the U.S. is not and has never
    >been on a level with Jews in German controlled Europe during the
    >2nd World War.
    >Nor can I accept an arguement suggesting the plight
    >of women is or ever was - in the U.S. - on a level with blacks during
    >the period of slavery or even through the 1960's.
    
    True, concerning the U.S.  But I was looking at women through the
    centuries and in other cultures (India or Iran, for example) as well.
    And it's every bit as grim as the plight of Jews when you look at
    the whole global history of women.
    
    >but were they hanged in large numbers?
    
    The witch hunts in medieval times, perhaps?  Thousands of innocent
    women were hunted and killed - burned at the stake, just for being
    slightly different.  Some men were killed also, but the large majority
    of those killed were women.
   
    	-Ellen

    I believe we have already strayed far off from the subject so gettig
    a little further won't make that much difference :-)
    
    I could be wrong, but as far as I have studied the US Constituton
    and various rulings by US Supreme Court, distributing Nazi literature
    is not illegal, even if it is stupid and racist.
    
    I think we all should spend some time and read about the First
    Ammendment.  Only this country has the Freedom of Expression and one
    sure way of killing it is to allow banning of `evil' expressions.
    
    For the record, I do agree the SI Swimsuit Issue is blatantly sexist.
    Unfortunately I believe that people have every right to think or feel
    whatever they want to feel or think about the siwmsuit issue or about
    the models.  It will become my concern if and only if they start acting
    upon it and it does cause harm. 
    
    When you *force* someone to take down an `offensive' poster, the only
    real thing it tells me about you, is that you have some `power' over
    that person.  If that was the intent, you have succeeded.  But if
    your intent was to change that person's attitude, you have failed.
    
    I have never believed in banning any expression, even if it is
    reprehensible to me. 
    
    - Vikas

    RE: .75
    
>    So were women, and still are in some cultures of the world.  What
>    about women and dowries in India?  
    
    Tell you what, I will reply to this note when I see the first woman
    president of United States.
    
    - Vikas "An Indian and quite offended by the stereo-typing"

 RE: .78

    Yes, indeed this discussion is resembling like Soapbox, but I have not
    seen any personal attacks (well, may be I have been de-sensitized :-) 
    
    I agree that sexism is blatant anywhere we care to look. We all know
    that this is a big problem.  However I do not believe that banning
    posters, books or swastikas is the way to solve it (please note
    that I am not defending the posters in the office environment.)

    - Vikas

    Vikas,
    
    There has been a lot in the news lately about brides in India
    being killed by their spouses and spouses families because their
    doweries were too small. Is this stereotyping or actual occurances?
    
    Bonnie

    
    Re: .71
    
    > People who murder and rape are sick, mentally ill,
    
    How do you account for DATE RAPE.  These rapes are done by just
    regular guys that the women involved thought enough of to date.
    These men don't believe they did anything wrong.  
    
    Re: .77
    
    There has been alot in the paper the past year concerning dowerys
    and brides in India.  Most of the articles I read indicated that
    this was a real problem and the government didn't really know what
    to do about it.
    
    

        There is no originality in this topic.  It appears that all
        of the complaints, and all of the responses to those complaints,
        have been used at least two or three times.
        
        Though I've already said this several times, in different
        ways, I'll try one more time...
        
        I *do* have the right to display my calendar (until and unless
        DEC chooses to form a blanket decree against art, calendars, or
        personal artifacts).  The calendar is not offensive, nor does it
        hurt anyone.  Some people choose to hurt themselves or to be
        offended because of it, but that is no fault of mine or of the
        calendar. 
        
        If people who work in my area, and have a legitimate reason
        for passing by my office on a regular basis (i.e., not for
        the sole purpose of criticizing my calendar), begin to complain,
        then, as a simple matter of courtesy, I would most likely
        remove it (as I said, this depends somewhat on the attitude
        of the person who complains).
        
        However, in the 13 months during which I have had an SI swimsuit
        calendar displayed in my office, I have received not a single
        negative comment, though I have received many positive or
        neutral comments from both sexes.  The *only* complaints I have
        heard are from contributors to this conference, none of whom
        appear to work anywhere near my area.  *Your* complaints,
        regardless of their merit, are irrelevant to my case.
        
        I have been accused of insensitivity... in fact, even my wife
        commented that some of my replies could be interpreted that way.
        Unfortunately, I really have no idea of how to convince anyone
        that this is not the case.  I apparently managed to convince one
        WOMANNOTES contributor offline via mail, but I was apparently
        utterly unable to translated whatever I said into the context of
        the notes conference.
        
        Saying it outright surely will do no good, but... I am not
        at all insensitive.  Oversensitive, perhaps, but certainly
        not insensitive.  However, I won't deny that I can be a bit
        stubborn over matters of principle.  This, perhaps
        unfortunately, is a matter of principle.  There *is* no reason
        why anyone should be bothered by my calendar, or by an earring,
        or by long hair.  There are, occasionally, reasons to be
        bothered by the *attitudes* motivating the display of these
        things: but this can never be stated as an absolute rule,
        and you need to base your opinions on the attitudes, not
        on the display.
        
	This conference has always been subject to a great deal of
        discrimination and prejudice and "label-ism"... "men are
        the cause of womens' problems", "men treat women as objects",
        "women would be better off without men", "men can't tolerate
        superior/older/whatever women"... "pictures of women in swim
        suits hurt women".  Considering that I've repeatedly fought
        all the other prejudices, I see no reason why this should
        be any different...
        
        	/dave

    	RE:  .76
    
    			Where did you get the notion of "forcing
    		someone" to tear down their posters?  Are you 
    		referring to *co-workers* forcing the posters
    		down or *DEC* forcing the posters down?
    
    			No co-worker has the right to do that, but
    		you can bet your sweet pay-check that *DEC* has the
    		right to ask employees to take down non-work-related
    		posters that DEC considers to be offensive to a certain
    		group.
    
    			Freedom of expression is a great idea, but
    		the point to remember (that has been raised over and
    		over and over) is that we are talking about a place
    		of business here!  Sexism is against corporate policy.
    		Those that wish to remain employed here had best adhere
    		to DEC standards in regards to sexist behavior.

    			No one can be prevented from thinking sexist
    		thoughts (or from being a sexist outside of work) --
    		but when it comes to behavior (and displays) on company
    		property, it's a whole different ballgame.
    
    						      Suzanne....

    Doug - you feel, (as one noter questioned), that we must be "hanged"
    in large numbers before female oppression becomes significant enough
    to warrant attention?  What do you consider "large numbers"?   Every
    7 seconds a woman is raped in this country, (some raped women have
    stated clearly that it can be WORSE than murder, and many of the
    rapes in this statistic have ended in murder).  Now let's see, every 
    7 seconds means roughly 205.7 women raped per day.  That makes
    6,171 women raped every month and 74,057 women raped PER YEAR. 
    
    Now, surely the statistics for murder are less but did you have
    any idea of the prevalance of rape?  The overwhelming majority of
    rapes are committed by MEN THE WOMEN KNOW. This means that rapes
    are NOT committed by a small, traveling band of foaming maniacs,
    but by the men with whom we live, (you and me), side by side.
                                          
    The 'classic' date-rapist is a well-dressed charmer with a good
    job, usually a wife and family.  Looks like you're not very good
    at picking out a potential rapist - good thing you're a man and
    have only your material goods to defend.
    
    A survey was taken among college men, (last year, I think), and
    the most significant question was something like, "In all honesty,
    have you EVER forced a woman in ANY WAY, to ANY DEGREE to have sex
    when she said no".  EVERY man responded yes, (many qualified their
    responses saying they were young, she was teasing, he only verbally
    forced her, etc), but the significant thing here is that the men felt
    that the woman BELONGED to them, never even CONSIDERED her feelings
    or questioned whether she even HAD any, and that she had little
    actual right to say no because HE wanted a yes.
    
    The question is where did they get this idea?  They were brought
    up with, (and are still teased with daily), the dangling carrots of 
    skin mags, commercials, sports events, billboards, movies, books,
    computer company demos, etc, and when finally confronting the goodies 
    face to face in the flesh are MORE likely to feel justified in simply 
    grabbing because of it.
    
    I think this answers Paul DiTomasso who scoffed at the idea that
    pictures incite men to rape and murder.  Don't be ridiculous - of
    COURSE they don't.  What they DO do is plant and enforce the idea
    in men that women are merely toys for men, and any dignity they
    may have is eclipsed by a man's desires.

    	RE:  .82
    
    			Fighting the prejudice against your
    		calender?  Isn't that stretching it a bit?  :-)
    
    						Suzanne...
    

    	RE:  .82
    
    			Reading that note again, I'm wondering why you
    		feel you can state unequivocally that something (anything)
    		is "NOT OFFENSIVE."  Isn't that subjective?
    
    			In all (or most) of my notes on this subject,
    		I've said "offensive to many women" (or similar comments.)
    		
    			What convinced me that you (and others) were
    		wrong in the first place were the targets of the remarks.
    		Those against nudie pictures attacked the pictures,
    		NOT those that hung them up.
    
    			Those *FOR* the nudie pictures attacked the
    		people who didn't agree with them (as being "bitches
    		who get undressed in the dark" or people who are foisting
    		their emotions onto the innocent calander lovers.)
    
    			BTW, read back over the list of prejudices 
    		you mentioned (that are in this conference.)  You LEFT
    		OUT all the ones that were against women.  You only
    		mentioned the ones against men.  

    							Suzanne...

  It's too bad that I've never had a Sports Illustrated swimsuit calendar
  (or its like) because this discussion would have persuaded me to take it
  all down.  I would remove these things because I have no wish to offend
  and it is clear that many reasonable people find them offensive.  Thanks
  to all for the education, by the way.

  But I have some questions for these reasonable people.  Do you really want
  to force the removal of these things by fiat?  Wouldn't it be better to
  convince individuals of their offensiveness?  That way, the calendars
  (or whatever) that remained after an attempt at persuasion would serve
  as an indicator of sorts.

  Just to provide an extreme example, I think that if I were working with
  or near someone who thought that, say, Hitler was merely misunderstood,
  I'd like to know that right up front.  If he or she wanted to proclaim
  such beliefs with wall hangings, that would be fine by me -- I would
  know where I stood and could take appropriate avoidance measures.

  JP

 A number of replies here seem to be relating the availability of pin-ups and 
 related material to such things as rape and sexism.
 
 Is  it  worth  pointing  out  that  after  pornography  was  made  legal  in 
 Scandinavian  countries a number of government sponsored statistical surveys 
 showed that the incidence of sexually related crime WENT DOWN.
 
 Or are the minds of the participants here already closed?
                                                         
 /. Ian .\                    

  Incidentally a lot of effort has  gone  into  discussing  the  totally 
  innocuous  Sports  Illustrated callendar.  I found one and had a look. 
  All the models are wearing complete swimsuits in the prudish  American 
  vein.
  
  By  that  I  mean  to  point out that Americans are culturally prudish 
  about the display of their bodies, though I wouldn't necesarily go  as 
  far  as  one  previous  respondent  who  suggested  they are afraid of 
  nudity.  But go to almost any mediterranean beach: a "micro bikini" is 
  over dressed, topless is normal, and full nude is unworthy of comment.
  
  Try it on most American beaches, and see how long it is before you are 
  arrested. 
  
  Also on the  subject  of  pin-ups:  a  number  of  British  newspapers 
  regularly (ie every day) feature one or more pin-up pictures of either 
  topless or nude models (always female).  They  are  known  as  "Page 3 
  Girls"  because the first paper to feature them - The Sun - placed the 
  feature on page 3.  For the first time in history the majority  of men 
  buying  a  newspaper  didn't  first  turn  to  the  back  page (sports 
  results)! Britain is by no means the most  sexually  open  country  in 
  europe.    (for  example  commercials on prime time TV in France often 
  feature nude women).
  
  Copies of "The Sun" or "The Star" or other  newspaper  'page  3  girl' 
  calendars  are  common,  even  on  the  walls  of respectable business 
  offices. 
  
  As I said in an earlier reply, I have worked in various  mixed  office 
  environments  where  such  calendars may or may not have been present, 
  but I have never heard anyone, male or female, in Britain raise it  as 
  being almost an aggressive act in the war of the sexes to display such 
  a calendar.         
       
  
  
  /. Ian .\

  >> Wouldn't it be better to convince individuals of their offensiveness?
  >	Nice theory ...  but what does it _TAKE_ to convince /dave?

  Sorry, I phrased that badly.  I should have said "... convince individuals
  of the offensiveness of their display."

  I suspect that /dave is also a reasonable person.  I agree with his position
  entirely if we move the context outside the workplace.  In any case, I am
  suggesting that the results of attempt at individual persuasion -- whatever
  those results may be -- provide important information.

  I think that /dave may merely have argued himself into a corner.  I
  don't know him except through NOTES but I think that if he had a
  coworker who needed to spend time in his office, and if that coworker
  were to say, "Dave, my kitten was run over yesterday and I just can't
  bear to see your kitten calendar," my guess is that /dave would take it
  down.  And isn't that the same sort of thing?  I'll bet he'd come around
  on the calendar issue, too, if it were placed in personal (coworker)
  rather than philosophical terms.

  Re: .91

  Lack of complaint does not mean lack of resentment.  Most of the blacks
  in this country were not vocal or violent in the battle for civil rights.
  That doesn't mean they were in favor of Jim Crow...

  JP

    re .92 (re.91) That was what I meant.....
    

    
   Re. 85  

    >
    >I think this answers Paul DiTomasso who scoffed at the idea that
    >pictures incite men to rape and murder.  Don't be ridiculous - of
    >COURSE they don't.  What they DO do is plant and enforce the idea
    >in men that women are merely toys for men, and any dignity they
    >may have is eclipsed by a man's desires.
    >
           ^ which causes men to rape and murder, (inferred from above)
    
    
    Please, ....  some men, not ALL men, in fact very few men.  That is
    the point I was bringing out.  It depends upon the man ... Some men
    are just as offended by this as women are, and some are totally
    insensitive to it.  Society does try to use sex as a selling point and
    yes it has been women mostly (until recently), but again this will be
    effective in some men and not others (and in some women and not in others
    too).  
    
    There are also many other pressures that men receive that send
    the same message,  such as women on the beach that wear those same 
    bathing suits that are shown in SI swimsuit edition.  Doesn't this put
    the same pressure on men to consider women sex objects,  if so, then
    aren't these women bringing it upon themselves.  (I don't think so,
    but logic says this is true)
    
    I still adhere to my point that rape is an act of pure violence, and
    men who commit it are sick (date rape is another case that I am not
    educated enough about to include) and would commit rape without influence
    from TV and magazines.  I also don't feel I was being ridiculous, many
    people argue that pictures are enough to incite men to rape and murder
    women.  (I am not defending the trash on TV and in some magazines
    I am just stating an opinion)
    
    
    >, and if society agrees that women will be kept
    >at an economic disadvantage, (like ours does), then for a price
    >you CAN get women to shed their dignity and their clothes.  So that 
    >she can feed herself and pay her rent you can get her to say to you that
    >she doesn't even HAVE any dignity!  
    
    Very many women believe that they are not compromising their dignity
    when posing for pictures, many of them lead very productive lives and
    can support themselves and do support themselves in other ways.  
    Not all women are posing solely for money,  and some of them are very
    proud of themselves for being able to pose for such pictures.
    (I am not supporting their views, just stating a fact)

    I am not defending pornography, nor am I defending sexism ... 
    However I do feel that some photographs and paintings of women naked
    or clothed can be done without reducing women's dignity.  If this affects
    a minute population in such a way that they go out and rape and murder
    then something should be done about it.  However there are probably
    many things that incite a minute portion of the population (including
    women's clothing)  to rape and murder (what should we do about this).
    
    
    My whole point in this has been that, pin-ups in the work place are
    unprofessional and I would not allow them if I were running the show.
    This doesn't mean that I feel all pictures of naked women are solely
    for the purpose of promoting women as sex objects, nor do I believe
    that they directly or indirectly compel normal men to commit rape and
    murder.        
    
    Paul                         

    Re .91, Why aren't there any Page 3 Boys for women to take a look
    at before they read the rest of the paper?  If there aren't any
    Page 3 Boys, there shouldn't be any "Page 3 Girls."
    
    Maybe the only reason that you never heard complaints of this type
    in Britain is because British women (and men) may not be as aware
    of sexism as we are in America.  (Is there a women's lib type movement
    in Britain similar to the one here? I think I've heard of a feminist
    publication over there called something like "Adam's Rib"?  I have
    a collection of poetry entitled, "Hard Feelings" written by British
    feminists, so there must be some over there.)
    
    Lorna
    

    re: sexism overseas
    	
    	Yes the french have nude women on TV.  They also have nude women
    paid to dance in discos (even "nice" places).  Last I heard (~a
    year ago) there were six women in Ecole Polytechnique, their version
    of MIT/CalTech.  When I worked for Renault there was one woman in
    my (large) building.  Mlle Dupuich was aware enough to say that
    she encountered a lot of work-related difficulties because she is
    a woman.  When asked about feminism, she made aspersions to american
    suffragettes.  In France, gang rape is common, and acquaintance
    rape is even more prevalent than here (my rape didn't happen in
    America!)
    
    With all their "freedom" to use nudity in commercials and their
    "vive la femme", it seems to me there must be a better way to respect
    and/or admire women.
    
    re: personal interaction
    
    That is how I have dealt with pin-ups at work.  Being reasonable
    and explaining that it really bugs me is usually effective.  So
    is avoidance (I must agree with what someone said before: knowing
    someone won't take it down usually does lead to a mark down for
    them in _my_ esteem, not that that is of any relevance to the person
    involved.  I just find it sad to make that mark...).
    
    Another technique is to explain that I was recently "molested" by
    too many people, and it is extremely traumatic to be in an environment
    which includes pin-ups as a reminder of the way "men" feel about
    women and their right to their own bodies, nice bodies or not. 
    That has yet to fail.
    
    re: rapists being sickos
    
    Yup, they are.  And they come from everywhere, they are everywhere,
    they dress many different ways, and they rape with different amounts
    of violence.  Some men may do it once "mildly" (rape a woman they
    dated who wouldn't "put out" after he paid for dinner), feel absolutely
    awful, decide never to do it again, and NEVER admit that what they
    did was rape.  The majority of date rapists are repeat offenders
    however, will never be taken to court, and will never see the harm
    in what they have done.
    
    I DON'T hate all men (I even fall in love with a few of them. eek).
    I don't think nudity is wrong -- nude sunbathing is fantastic. 
    I feel more clothed with nothing on than I do in many bathing suits.
    
    I _AM_ traumatized by rape, and I have yet to meet a woman (25+)
    who hasn't been raped in one way or another.
    
    I _DO_ resent not being able to walk places a man can without fear.
    
    I _DO_ resent the fact that I don't dare to travel to a third world
    country without an escort.
    
    
    
    And a pin-up in the office reminds me of all this, every time I
    see it.  And I am NOT that different from a majority of women.
    
    Lee

  re .95:

  >I still adhere to my point that rape is an act of pure violence, and
  >men who commit it are sick (date rape is another case that I am not
  >educated enough about to include) and would commit rape without influence
  >from TV and magazines.

	Rape is rape, whether it's committed on a date or by a husband
	or boyfriend or whether it's committed by a complete stranger.
	Rape is closer at hand than many people think.

  re .91:

  >Incidentally a lot of effort has  gone  into  discussing  the  totally 
  >innocuous  Sports  Illustrated callendar.  I found one and had a look. 
  >All the models are wearing complete swimsuits in the prudish  American 
  >vein.

	They were wearing complete swimsuits.  So what?  Why weren't some
	of them wearing other types of outfits - tennis outfits, running
	outfits, or how about full sweats (since it is a sports magazine)?
	And why were no men featured in sports outfits as well?
  
  >But go to almost any mediterranean beach: a "micro bikini" is 
  >over dressed, topless is normal, and full nude is unworthy of comment.
  
  >Try it on most American beaches, and see how long it is before you are 
  >arrested. 
  
	I agree with you on this.  However, at nude beaches, everyone
	is nude - men and women.  It's an equal situation.  And I haven't
	noticed either of the sexes ogling the other in this situation
	(I admit I've had less than half a dozen nude beach visits.)

  >Also on the  subject  of  pin-ups:  a  number  of  British  newspapers 
  >regularly (ie every day) feature one or more pin-up pictures of either 
  >topless or nude models (always female).  They  are  known  as  "Page 3 
  >Girls"  because the first paper to feature them - The Sun - placed the 
  >feature on page 3.  For the first time in history the majority  of men 
  >buying  a  newspaper  didn't  first  turn  to  the  back  page (sports 
  >results)! Britain is by no means the most  sexually  open  country  in 
  >europe.    (for  example  commercials on prime time TV in France often 
  >feature nude women).

	Yes, why no men?  It's a sad comment that this is what sells
	newspapers.  Do you really not understand the connection between
	this type of behavior (the men turning first to page 3 to ogle
	the gals in the pictures) and why many women find these materials
	offensive?  Is it that hard to understand the connection?  I
	don't know how many ways we have to say it.
  
  >As I said in an earlier reply, I have worked in various  mixed  office 
  >environments  where  such  calendars may or may not have been present, 
  >but I have never heard anyone, male or female, in Britain raise it  as 
  >being almost an aggressive act in the war of the sexes to display such 
  >a calendar.

	Maybe the women you work with are like me.  They won't say anything
	but they'll make a mental note (right or wrong) that you may
	see women primarily as sex objects.  I lose respect for a person who
	has such material displayed at work.

	You may not get my respect for having pictures that depict women
	as objects on your wall at work, but I'll gladly share a nude
	beach with you any day (not in February, though :-) ).

	-Ellen

    Re .91:  "Page 3 GIRLS"??
    
    The phraseology in itself says something.

My husband made a point that I found interesting. He said that in a perfect
society with no sexism men would still find scanitly clad woman attractive
and want to look at pictures of them. And that there wasn't anything sexist
inherent in the pictures themselves, and if they bothered me then this was
MY problem. 

Well, I think he's right to a certain extent. It is something in ME that
sees the pictures as sexist. And I see them that way because of the total
experience of growing up a woman in this society. They aren't sexist to
him because he is not a woman, because he hasn't had the experiences that 
I (and most other woman) have had. He has never felt the constant sutble
pressure that we as woman live with every day. It's EVERY WHERE you look.

In movies, total female nudity is a R, male nudity an X. On tv
when male and female dances perform, the males costumes usually have long
pants the womans costumes are barely legal. How about the infamous Brooke
Shields calvin klien comerials, and even Dr. Who with his never ending series 
of scanitly clad assistants and it goes on and on and on... And it doesn't
stop with the clothing issue either, these woman are portrayed in most
of our popular fiction as mere prizes to be awarded to the victorious male,
there sole purpose to provide something to be resuced or lusted after.

It makes me very angry, and any reminder however innocent will invoke
some of that anger. I think we can see some that that anger here in this
note.

Now doing away with these pictures is really only removing the symptom,
it doesn't touch the cause at all, not really. In my husbands perfect 
world I probably wouldn't care about dave's calendar. The fact that men
like to look at pictures of partially clad woman certainly doesn't 
bother me (In fact I'm glad that at least one man likes to look at 
one woman :-)) But this is not a perfect world and it does bother me.

Well, sorry to be so long winded, not sure that I said anything really
new, but for some reason I just I to put in my .02.

-vicki

    
    
    Again the issue is we (a number of woman in the notes file) find
    it (the semi-nude photos of women in the work-place) offensive.
    Our reasons have been stated and yet the fact that we find it
    offensive has been questioned.  I find it offensive that we have
    to validate our responses yet again.
    
    I may be a prud but I am a nude prud.
    
    _peggy
    

    I will try to make only brief comment about the dowries in India in
    this note.  It is indeed true that dowry practise is still strong in
    many parts of India and in some villages it occasionaly leads to
    suspicious death of brides.  But the US press portrayal reflects more
    of its present relationship with India as a country in general than the
    true conditions. 
    
    It should be noted that the progress India has made over last few
    decades in Women's Right is astonishing.  Not in many countries women
    can achieve the highest ranking positions, certainly not in this
    country at least not for next thirty years.  
    
    Given that, the off-hand remarks about plights of women in India was
    not appropriate in this topic. It will and it should certainly be
    brought up if and when we are discussing the dowry system. It is not
    uncommon in United States for a bride's father to put a down payment on
    the couple's new house or to pay for the wedding expenses. 
    
    - Vikas

    Getting back to the current topic, let me try to make few things
    clear.
    
    The electronic poster is inappropriate because of the copyright
    violations involved.  Unless we get permission from the publisher,
    we have no rights to digitize the Ms. Tiegs poster and display it
    on our systems.

    However, that is not why we are discussing it in this conference.
    It has now moved from the electronic poster on our systems to the
    swim-suit issue on Dave's office.
    
    I admire Dave's stand on this issue and it is pleasure to be on his
    side in this argument (I remember being on the other side in Video
    conference, a long time ago).  For the record, I do not have any
    posters or calendars in my office nor in my home.  I have no intention
    of hanging them either.  Also I probably do consider putting up
    swim-suit issue on the office wall is in bad taste. However the taste
    is very subjective and what I may consider in good taste could
    conceivably be considered to be in very poor taste by someone else. 
    
    For the sake of this argument, assume that I have the swim-suite
    issue in my office.  Let's try to analyze the scenarios case by
    case.
    
    I hate someone who tries to treat people as if they are `misguided
    souls'.  These are the people who give arguments resembling `I do not
    have any problems with blah-blah-blah, but someone else might take
    offense at it'.  What they are in essence telling me that they are
    superior people so that they are here to make the moral judgments for
    the masses. These are the people who would claim that erotica should be
    censored and they would like to be the one who has to see all the smut
    e.g. Ed Meese and the company type.  For me that kind smugness serves
    no useful purpose. 
    
    Now there could be another kind of person who might her(him)self be
    offended by the display of that swim-suite issue.  In that
    circumstances, we can have meaningful discussion.  For instance, the
    person might be one of my co-worker. In this case I might either change
    the location of the extra chair or the location of the calendar, so
    that (s)he would not see the calendar in normal circumstances. 

    Let's assume that someone else who I don't know, just sends me mail
    telling me to take the calendar down or else is going to complain to
    the `authorities'.  Depending upon how long I have been chasing some
    stupid bug in the software, I might either reply 'Go Ahead Make My Day'
    or `No problem', most probably the former. 
    
    It will probably reach my manager and if (s)he does not see anything
    wrong with my calendar, the issue might be escalated to very high
    level. 
    
    Now if finally it comes down to between my job and the calendar, the
    calendar will go, but then again I might decide to consult a lawyer. It
    is my current understanding (before consulting a lawyer) that the work
    place is not my home and the employer has every right to enforce the
    standards of what is acceptable on the office walls and what is not.
    The operative word here is enforce i.e. it could `force' me to take
    that calendar down. 

    If you believe that I am sexist because I had that calendar on the
    wall, do you think after I was forced to remove it, I have become any
    less sexist?  Is it possible that if I were to see my poor judgment in
    displaying such calendar by the persuasive logic, there might less of
    sexism in my mind? 

- Vikas    

        I'm getting tired of this... it's going nowhere.  I've read
        up to .86 of .103, and I doubt I'll take the time to read
        the rest.
        
        Since I happened to give up at Suzanne's note (perhaps it's
        not coincidence, since her note says the same things we've
        already discussed in private via mail), I'll make a few public
        comments on her points.
        
        When someone says my calendar is sexist, that is judging the
        "meaning" and intent of the calendar based purely upon
        superficial appearances: that's a bias without knowing---or
        apparently caring about---the facts.  That's prejudice.  While
        I'll grant that prejudice against an object isn't quite the same
        thing as prejudice against a person, it's still prejudice.  And,
        Suzanne, even you (and several others) *have* said that *I* am
        being sexist by displaying the calendar... and that *is*
        prejudice against a person: me. 
        
        To me, prejudice, in any form, is a basic evil.  I will never
        accept any prejudice as valid, under any conditions.  Whatever
        rationalizations you may have for the attitudes expressed
        against me in this topic, they *are* prejudicial.
        
        In any case, I have made my views known, numerous others
        have made their views known, and it's highly unlikely any
        agreement will be reached... there's really no purpose to
        continuing it, and I certainly intend not to.
        
        	/dave

		During the 1940's and early 50's, when I was a child living 
	in a housing project in Boston, the major store owners were Jews.
	They were nice people but their businesses were in a poor Catholic
	neighborhood.  The Catholic boys (I was one of them) did their best
	to harass the Jewish shop keepers by throwing dead rats, etc. into 
	their places of business, breaking the store windows, and other 
	nasty things.  Most of this ugliness was perpetrated during the
	Roman Catholic Holydays.

		During this time, our neighborhood was changing from one
	of Irish and Swedish ethnic groups to include the Italians who
	were displaced by the war.  Our attacks against the Jews quieted
	a bit while we directed the ugliness towards the Italians.
	
		The Italians fought back (there were many of them in a very
	short time) and eventually joined us in our harassment of the
	Jews.

		Then, about 1952, it was determined that our white 
	neighborhood should be integrated.  As the black families moved
	into the housing project we took action against them and left the
	Jews alone.  With the support of many of the adults, we blew up
	their apartments (always making sure no one was at home).  When
	the black kids came to our highschool they we beat them badly.
	In a very short time, the blacks left.  Then the Jews left, selling
	their small businesses to Italians.

		Across the city, during these years, there were major gangs
	in most neighborhoods - East Boston, the North End, Southie, etc.
	who fought each other.  The North End gang was Italian, the gang
	from Southie was Irish, those from East Boston and Dorchester were
	strongly Irish but mixed.
	
		The prejudice which exists in Boston today flourished 
	during my youth.  Irish against Italian, Jew against Gentile,
	East Bostonian against South Bostonian, etc.  The root of our
	prejudice was poverty and ignorance.
	
		Woman were not treated very well by today's standards,
	I suppose.  I really don't know.  I do know women had a very
	narrowly defined role in the society of my youth, but so did
	many ethnic groups.  Rape may have been very common.  I know
	it wasn't reported.

		With time, rules were enforced and the gangs mostly
	broke up.  Women banded together, as did the Blacks, and fought
	for what was rightly theirs.  The rules of our society began
	to win for all of us.

		And that is the crux of my complaint against any
	comparison of the plight of women in the U.S. and the
	oppressed of Hitler's Europe and the black slaves.  There
	were no rules on the side of the oppressed of Europe or the
	blacks.  When a woman in the U.S. is raped she can file suit
	against her attacker(s).  The Jews, Catholics, Gays, etc. in
	Hitler's Europe simply became slaves, to die or live a life
	equal to death in the concentration camps.  The black slaves
	in the U.S. lived a very similar experience.  There were no
	laws to help either of these groups.  There are laws to help
	protect women in the U.S.  Given a choice, which of the three
	life styles would any of us choose?

		Comparing the plight of women over the last 100 years
	with that of the slaves or prisoners in the concentration camps
	is absurd.  Comparing the Swastika to a 'pin up' picture is just
	as absurd.  How many women who pose for pin up pictures do so
	out of a fear of death or worse?  Yes, pin up pictures are symbolic
	of sexism to many people but are they really in the same category
	as the crooked cross of Hitler's Germany?  Do women really have
	no choice but to pose for the pictures?  Are pin up pictures as
	repulsive as lamp shades made from the skin of Jews who were killed
	in the concentration camps?

		Why are there so few male pin up pictures?  I suggest a
	simple answer, at least for the U.S.; the market for them is
	insufficient.  If enough people wanted male pin up pictures the
	manufacturers would put them at our disposal.  The lack of male
	pin up pictures, I argue, is not a moral statement or a sexist
	one, simply an economic statement.  Where the demand is limited
	so is the supply.

		There are no pin up pictures of men or women in my home
	or my cubicle because many women I know find them offensive and
	because I have no interest in the pin up pictures.  I do have
	a collection of nude photographs of many of my friends -
	photography is my major hobby - but the collection is private
	and has never been shown to anyone.  The human body is the
	single most beautiful form in my universe - fat, skinny, brown,
	yellow, white, young, old.  There is a saying, I can't recall
	from whom, "Culture is hearing the 'William Tell Overture' and
	not thinking of the Lone Ranger."  I would also say, "Culture
	is viewing a photo of a nude without leering."

	Douglas

        OK, so I'm curious and weak-willed!  I couldn't resist reading
        the last couple of replies (.100 to .103).
        
        First, thank you Vikas for the support.  I applaud your courage
        (though I question your wisdom :-) ) in stepping into the
        middle of this firestorm...  :-)
        
        .100: No, Vicki, you didn't say anything new: but I think
        you said it more reasonably and perhaps more honestly than
        anyone else.
        
>Now doing away with these pictures is really only removing the symptom,
>it doesn't touch the cause at all, not really.
        
        I wouldn't *quite* agree, since I don't even consider my
        calendar to be a "symptom" of anything... except possibly the
        fact that the human species consists of two sexes which happen
        not to find each other unbearably grotesque. The general
        popularity and abundance of such items may indeed be a symptom
        of something... but that has nothing to do with me or *my*
        particular calendar.  Still, the latter phrase of your statement
        is very important: removing the calendar wouldn't change
        anything significant.
        
        My other point is a reiteration of my continuing stance,
        I suppose.  There is a topic about anger at men, with the
        general trend of attempting to legitimize being angry at
        *all* men because of the general historical unfairness of
        society.  You simply can't generalize like that.  Save your
        anger for someone who's doing something to hurt you.  Being
        angry at my calendar, especially when you've admitted that
        "in your perfect world" it wouldn't bother you, is much the
        same.  It's unproductive, and unfair to me.
        
        Of course, you have a perfect right to be angry or offended
        at anything you choose.  What you do not have is the right
        to constrain my life because of it.  Any more than a woman
        "angry at all men" has the right to make us all jump off a
        cliff to get us out of the way... 
        
        	/dave

    We women have told you how pictures of women done with the sole
    intent to titillate men make us feel.
    
    We've given you cold statistics, (one woman raped every 7 seconds), 
    and we've given you personal accounts, (a personal incidence of
    rape), and after 103 replies some of you men stand firm.  Why?
    
    Because they say what is offensive is only what is offensive to THEM.  
    They say they would certainly respect other people's feelings but that
    nobody has ever "told" them they were offended.  I guess these notes
    don't count.  They say look at England - "the women THERE don't begrudge
    our sniggering at them"!  Or look at India - "SURE women are killed
    but's it's better then it WAS"!
    
    This is all supposed to make us women understand the error of our
    (prudish) ways.  So we feel this way - so what?  We're only WOMEN
    after all, and our protestations are considered by many men to be
    just one more example of women "cackling" or "flapping their jaws"
    or whatever negative stereotype you choose for women who don't sit
    down and be nice quiet girls.  One woman here said that she didn't
    protest out loud when confronted with one of these ever-present re-
    minders of our place in the world, but that she does lose respect for 
    the man proudly displaying these reminders.  You guys don't really worry
    about that now, do you?  So some "chick" loses respect for you, big
    deal.  Real life "chicks" just don't seem to matter to you as much
    as the picures of them do, do they?  Those smiling, friendly women
    are looking at YOU and saying "YOU are the man I need, now AREN'T you!"
    and as long as you can have these women saying these things to you,
    then what real life women have to say is just more boredom to be
    endured.  
    
    You who have taken a stand against the protestations here have admitted
    that you don't CARE what we think.  You've heard us but our words
    have fallen on deaf ears because you know that if you DID understand
    what we were saying you would have to change a lot of your basic
    beliefs and they are just too enjoyable to you to change.  You don't
    WANT to feel guilty ogling women - you don't WANT the world to stop
    presenting female bodies for your viewing pleasure some 2-3 hundred
    times/day.
    
    You don't WANT us women to remind you of what this makes us feel
    like because you want to have your pictures, your images, your
    fantasies and be left in peace to enjoy them.  Well perhaps too
    many women don't really understand that.  Perhaps now that some
    women here DO understand you, you may get 'left in peace to enjoy them'
    more than you like.  
    

    re /dave et al:
    
    Number one:
    I would not to force anyone to take down their pictures, even at
    work, although I strongly believe that they are not appropriate in
    the workplace.  Why would I not ask you to take down something I
    find offensive?  Because I value freedom of speech more than that.  I
    don't think I've heard anyone (not in any numbers anyway) here say that
    materials like this should be banned.
    
    Number two:
    Can you still not see the symbolism between the pictures and sexism?
    
    There are two different issues here: 1) freedom of speech, with which
    I agree with you all the way.  And I've said before that I would
    not tell someone to take the pictures down.  and 2) pictures of
    scantily-clad women linked with sexism in our society.  Two different
    issues.  You keep arguing the first, which no one is arguing with
    you about.
    
    What about the second issue?  Can you not agree that the pictures are
    at least *linked* to sexism?  And, /dave, I am *not* talking about how
    *you* see the pictures.  I have known you through this notes file from
    its inception and I know that you are a reasonable person, so I *know*
    from what you've said here and in other notes, that *you* are not
    sexist.  But can you really not see how the materials are linked to
    sexism for *a lot* of people (particularly women), even if not for
    yourself?  And if you cannot see that for yourself, can you not take
    our collective word for it?  Are not all of our voices enough for you?
    And what about the few men you mentioned that come in and ogle your
    pictures?  Isn't that a testimony to what we're trying to say here
    as well?

    	-Ellen

    	RE:  Douglas
    
    			Guess I need to repeat myself (since *I*
    		brought up Nazis et al) that I was talking about
    		*SYMBOLS* that we are familiar with (not comparing
    		suffering between groups, murder by murder)...
    		My original point was that pin-ups are symbols of
    		something that DEC is supposed to be against as a
    		corporation:  sexism.
    
    			It's nice of you to point out to us over
    		and over that we are not as "cool" as other victims
    		of oppression (because we haven't died fast enough
    		or in massive enough numbers in the shortest time
    		span.)  Obviously, you feel that each group needs
    		to be separate -- you can't just take the point that
    		*ALL* oppression is wrong.  You've set up a nice
    		"pecking order" for us to follow according to group.
    		(What does that have to do with symbols?  Does that
    		make our symbols less valid in your mind?)  Probably.
    
    	RE:  Dave
    
    			From what you've said, I get the impression
    		that you feel that the SI swimsuit calandar is *NOT*
    		designed to be sexually appealling.  We are being
    		prejudiced against it *UNFAIRLY* just because the
    		pictures happen to be of women...in swimsuits...in
    		sexy poses...  Sports Illustrated did *NOT* (in your
    		mind) create the Swimsuit Issue as a gimmick to use
    		sex to sell magazines, right?  They did it as a tribute
    		to art (a public service.)  Right?
    
    			All those that agree with you do *NOT* appear
    		to share your views on this fact.  Those that share
    		your views seem to feel that if you want to be sexist,
    		it is your right (and we shouldn't try to stop you.)
    		They are also saying that taking down your calandar
    		won't stop you from thinking sexist thoughts (it won't
    		change how you feel about women.)  You'll still be
    		sexist.
    
    			Well, Dave, *I* don't happen to think you are
    		sexist!!!  I think you bought the calandar because it
    		was pretty.  *BUT* -- the fact remains that Sports
    		Illustrated put it out as a way to use sex to sell mags.
    		(If not, then why not use pictures of Mother Theresa
    		in a habit?  I've seen photos of her that are considered
    		art!)  Why not use photos of 60 year old women (with
    		interesting faces?)  Why not use babies and children?
    
    			Show me one other person in this conference
    		that doesn't think that Sports Illustrated put out that
    		calandar because men would find it nice to look at for
    		the sexual appeal of pretty young women in beach attire.
    		
    			Face it -- the calandar is sexy (whether or
    		not *YOU* think it is, and whether or not *YOU* get
    		turned on by it.)  You can't change that fact by claiming
    		prejudice.  It was not put out as a public service to
    		advance art appreciation.  (If it was, they'd have a
    		huge market with other segments of society -- like women
    		and gay men.)  The chosen market for that calandar and
    		for the swimsuit issue is heterosexual men.  Find anyone
    		else that doesn't see that besides you!
    
    			I *DO* believe in your Free Speech and your
    		Freedom of Thought.  If I knew you personally and saw
    		your calandar (before reading about it here), there's
    		no way in the WORLD I would have said anything to you
    		about it.  (And there's no way in the WORLD that I would
    		have *ASSUMED* you were a drooling, lecherous potential
    		rapist -- or even a SEXIST for that matter!!!)  I would
    		have assumed that you did not realize that it is offensive
    		to many people (and considered bad taste by almost all
    		the rest to have it in the office.)
    
    			I'm talking here about *THE OFFICE*!!  Having
    		the walls decorated with sexual material is inappropriate
    		for an office environment.  (I've said that since the
    		beginning.)
    
    			I don't blame you for all our troubles -- if
    		you remember, I argued *AGAINST* anger towards men and
    		*AGAINST* being upset about past oppression.  I think
    		we should all forget it and try to move forward with
    		our lives!  But how can we if you (and others) hit us
    		in the face with it every day where we *WORK* by putting
    		up pictures that remind us of it???
    
    			Your personal freedom is more important than
    		consideration for fellow employees -- OK, fine.  You
    		will undoubtedly be allowed to keep your calandar. 
    		Your personal statement has been noted (that your idea
    		of prejudice is that we are picking on this poor little
    		calandar that was *ONLY* trying to be art, not trying
    		to make money by selling sex.)  OK -- go fight that
    		battle.  Far be it from me to change your mind if that
    		is your "new cause."  I don't work in your building
    		-- and thank God, such photos are not displayed ANYWHERE
    		in my building -- so I won't be affected by what you
    		choose to do.
    
    			But don't convince yourself that every single
    		one of your co-workers is un-offended by your calandar.
    		Nearly everyone in this conference (including me) has
    		stated that they would *NOT* complain in person about
    		it.
    
    			We're saying this cuz it is *NOTES* -- which
    		should be a unique opportunity to gain insight to each
    		other because we say things here that we would *NOT*
    		say in person.  If you choose to ignore what we say,
    		fine.  That's your choice.
    
    							Suzanne...

    So if some of the page 3 girls were page 3 boys it would be illegal?
    Why is that?  Why is showing a man's sexual attributes illegal and
    showing a woman's not only legal, but encouraged?!  Why??
    
    The difference between British women and American women is that
    American women are more vocal.  Why?  Ian, you assume it's because British
    women are not uptight.  You COULD be wrong.  Practically every woman
    in this note, (a good proportion are American), said they would
    not SAY anything either!  So we're as silent as the Brits and yet
    WE don't like it.  Perhaps British women are the same?  Same as women
    everywhere?  If you guys are really interested in what women think
    about your fetishes, (and I know that you are not), then the next
    time and every time you, your pictures and a woman are all together
    ask her sincerely to tell you honestly what she thinks.  But I know
    you'd see that as a waste of time because what difference does it
    make even if EVERY woman you ask finally admits it makes her squirm,
    makes her feel like she's being appraised - compared and of COURSE
    found lacking.  So what, right?  That's HER problem!
    
    I think there's a lesson for us women to learn here.  The men are
    not listening, and it's not difficult to understand why they won't.
    They simply like pictures of women and real life females can all
    go squat if they don't like it.
    
    The lesson?  Oh yes.  I think the guys here think our protests are
    just empty fist-shaking, rationalizing that "Well women couldn't hate
    it THAT much because I still get dates so to hell with these
    "uptight few".  Hmmmm.  Do we indeed date men whose habits we find 
    offensive?  I know that if we stood by our principles to date only
    men who met our non-sexists requirements, we'd probably all date
    very little!  But are we really putting our money where our mouths
    are?  Have you ever turned down an offer of a date with "No, thank
    you, I don't like your style" or something like that?  This topic
    has given me the clear impression that as long as these men can
    have their pictures and enough real live women to sleep with, nothing
    else really matters.  They don't CARE about what we think - as long
    there are enough of us who will 'date' them, then our protests are
    just so much hot air to them.
    
    So next time and EVERY time we are offended, we have a DUTY to
    let it be known.  No need to be militant and angry about it, in
    fact if you could put an edge of quiet condescention in your voice
    that would be perfect, but men don't often pick up on that tone.
    They just don't expect it would be coming from a woman.  AND it's
    our duty to stop being so DAMN NICE to men and sparing what we've
    learned to regard as their precious, fragile egos because in the
    process they are taking our politeness as tacit agreement with their 
    sexist habits.  They said so in just so many words right here! 
    Turn him down and TELL HIM WHY!  They won't listen and will NEVER care 
    until it hits them where it hurts - in the bedroom.  We're letting
    them have their cheescake and eat it to and behind all the rhetoric
    from them here is the attitude, "So what?  So what can you DO about
    it?  NOTHING!"  As long as we're sweet, silent and politely endure
    what we've admitted we hate, they will look up in wide-eyed innocence 
    when confronted and say, "What?  Me?  Sexist?  Whaddya mean?  Who
    says?  I ain't heard nuthin'!"

    re a lot of the previous, I've mentioned before in other settings,
    it is very hard to educate people with a brick.

    
    I'm not sure this applies, since the calendar in question wasn't
    at work, but I'll go with it anyway:
    
    On a door at home I have hanging the Touch of Silk Calendar.  For
    those of you unfamiliar with it, it features pictures of women in
    lingerie/underwear.  Occasionally, the models are posed with one
    breast bare.  Most of the time, the pictures are about as pornographic
    as the underwear section in the Sears catalog.
    
    Nevertheless, a feminist friend of mine caught sight of it and
    immediately began hassling me about it.  Finally I said,
    
    "Look here.  I happen to like these photographs.  I find the
    photographs to be things of beauty, the same way I might find a
    painting or a flower beautiful.  Now if you want to judge that as
    sexist, you go right ahead.  I'm not comparing you to the women in the
    pictures -- I don't know anything about them except that they once
    stood in front of a camera in their underwear.  I don't judge people by
    the things they have hanging on their walls.  And I can do without
    hassle from anyone who isn't willing to expend any effort beyond that
    to try to know me."
    
    And I think that's the point here.  Sure, there's more cheesecake
    of women then men, because more people want to see women then men.
    It would not exist without a demand.  But a woman going to judge
    every man by what he likes hanging on his walls, then she is being
    as sexist as a man who thinks a woman is extending an invitation
    to hop in the sack by being friendly and personable.
    
    I would not bring the calendar to work, as I realize my female
    co-workers might prefer not to be looking at this thing in my office
    while we're trying to get something done.  That's common courtesy,
    which is the point the original note wanted to make, I think.
                                                      
    DFW    

Could we perhaps invoke the 24 hour cooling off period for this note?

Doing next/unseen commands has brought me back here several times in this
session and the quality of the responses seems in general to be following
response time right down the tubes on the useful scale.   

    re .117:
    
    >re a lot of the previous, I've mentioned before in other settings,
    >it is very hard to educate people with a brick.
    
    Seems it's hard to educate at all some times.
    
    	-Ellen

    There are more cheesecake of women than of men because more "people"
    want to see women.  That's what someone just said.  More "People".
    I guess women don't fall in that category.
    
    Another one said "Sex is used to sell everything".  Right there
    is the blurring of sex with women.  Sex is fine, but WOMEN are used
    to sell everything.  We are NOT sex.
    
    And someone else objects because our feelings lack "rationale".
    Feelings are valid.  Period.  Without this notesfile here and now
    we never would have expressed even THIS much rationale but that
    doesn't make the feelings invalid.  It simply doesn't seem to be
    ENOUGH for men that we just don't like it, they want clear, concise
    rationale that will back them against the wall and if we don't give
    it to them than they feel they are justified in ignoring our feelings.
    
    They keep arguing showing us WHY we shouldn't feel that way, (They
    don't in Britain, "my models" don't, you're just uptight, I have
    rights, etc), but whether or not we SHOULD makes NO DIFFERENCE.
    The fact of the matter is WE DO.  And now you KNOW we do.  And you
    also know WHY we do.  You knew before you ever HEARD of notesfiles
    why women don't generally like such things.  But that's of little
    consequence.  Knowing that women don't like it is simply NOT ENOUGH
    reason, and THAT'S my main issue.  You know, you know why, but you
    like it and so you just don't CARE.  Given the choice between the
    smiling picture and the real live woman who may "lose respect" for
    you, you have defended the smiling picture every time.

    re: .123
    	well spoke, Ms. Ciccolini! 
    	
    	Throughout this debate I have found your (and others') arguements
    	to be absolutely reasonable and correct. Please count this male
    	noter as behind you.
    
    	unfortunately, men are slime; fortunately, some have realised
    	they are slime and have tried to be better :-)
    

... from out of the woodwork yet again ...


I have, as a lot of others have, gotten this far in the note.  There is
a lot of finger pointing, blaming, flaming, etc, etc.  It looks for all
the world to be a rathole (immovable object, irresistable force).  It has
to say the least been extremely thought provoking (from both sides) and
useful.  I would like to ask a simple question of all, either side:

	Given all the wrongs mentioned, what can be done?  What is it
	specifically that you would like to see done to solve the 
	problems mentioned?  Can it be cured or greatly diminished?
	How?  

Joe

                                
    >Given all the wrongs mentioned, what can be done?  What is it
    >specifically that you would like to see done to solve the 
    >problems mentioned?  Can it be cured or greatly diminished?
    >How?                       
                                
    Treat your office like an office, not like an extension of
    your home. Pinup posters/calendars have no place in the office.
    They offend many of your co-workers & are inappropriate. Period.
                                
    The network should be kept free of sexist/racist images. There is
    so much that we can choose from it is inappropriate for us to have
    male or female pinup posters on the net. Think about the company
    image before you mount your soapbox & cry free speech. Our decision
    to avoid piunups seems more professional than prudish, & is in line
    with the corporate philosophy.
                                
    As regards free speech...   
                                
    Despite the inferences, no one has suggested that managers don
    jackboots and take down posters. Many women & men have asked that the
    posters be removed *voluntarily* as an expression of solidarity &
    understanding. While people may feel strongly about the issue from a
    personal point of view, no one has yet suggested any official action be
    taken. If someone did propose official action it would be unfortunate
    because I would then be forced into defending such freedom of speech
    from a legal standpoint (to paraphrase, I may disagree with you poster
    but I agree to defend your right to display it). 
    
    The issue here is the fitness of an image to one's place of work.
    It is first a matter of respect for one's fellow workers, second
    a matter of corporate policy against sexism, & finally a matter
    of courtesy.
    

    			Now that the smoke has cleared (weekends
    		sometimes come at such convenient times :-)  --
    		I'd like to add one more thing to this discussion.
    
    			We all have our opinions about things.  
    		Many opinions are of a "subjective" nature -- in
    		other words, there is no one clear right or wrong
    		(there is no black and white.)  What seems perfectly
    		reasonable to one person can seem outrageous to
    		another (or to many others.)  It all depends on your
    		particular perspective.
    
    			My definition of tolerance is being able
    		to say, "I disagree with you but I would defend to
    		the death your right to have that opinion if you so
    		choose."  (Of course, in this vast gray area between
    		black and white, there will always be those that
    		"violently disagree" or feel that their particular
    		position has a moral imperative behind it.)  For
    		example, I violently disagree with racists (and feel
    		there is a moral imperative involved), but I'm not
    		suggesting that racists should be jailed or executed
    		(unless they commit a crime.)  If they *did* commit
    		a crime, they would be punished for the crime itself
    		and not the act of being racist.
    
    			In this note, there are many who say they
    		are offended by pictures of semi-clad women (*WHEN*
    		those pictures are displayed in an office environment.)
    		Those feelings of being offended are subjective and
    		are totally *VALID* (whether any one else agrees with
    		them or not.)
    
    			What bothered me the most about /dave and Bob
    		McClure's positions on this issue was that they came
    		into the note with the idea that *THEY* had a certain
    		opinion that was so "right" that anyone who disagreed
    		with them had to be "immature" (as /dave said in his
    		first note) or had to be "bitches who get undressed
    		in the dark or jerks that can't get it up" (as Bob said
    		in a note following /dave's first entry on this topic.)
    
    			Neither of them had the tolerance to say, "Well,
    		I happen to feel that the pictures are OK, and know
    		for a fact that I'm not displaying them in a desire
    		to be sexist.  I just don't happen to agree that they
    		are symbols of oppression.  Because of that, I don't
    		feel that I should remove them."  *PERIOD*
    
    			I think it was the height of arrogance on their
    		parts to tell us that if we had another opinion, then
    		we must all have some sort of "PROBLEM" (another person
    		mentioned being "frightened by nudity" as one example
    		of the "PROBLEMS" that are *DEFINITELY* present for
    		all those of us that had the gall to disagree with their
    		exalted positions.)
    
    			/dave went on and on about being "forced" to
    		remove the pictures (although nearly every single one
    		of us *INSISTED* that we would not force him to do a
    		thing, and went on to say that in person we would not
    		have even *MENTIONED* that we were offended.)  So he
    		was arguing against some imaginary force that didn't
    		even exist.
    
    			If he thinks that the pictures are not offensive,
    		I respect his opinion.  I don't agree with it, but I
    		feel that he has the right to feel that way.  He also
    		has the right to display the calendar (in spite of how
    		others feel about it) if he so chooses.  I would *NEVER*
    		*EVER* consider bringing it up directly to DEC myself
    		to have it removed (nor would anyone else in this
    		conference, I'm willing to bet.)  If DEC decided to
    		do it anyway (because of some new edict), I wouldn't
    		disagree with DEC's right to dictate what materials
    		are displayed on DEC facilities.  We are employed here
    		and DEC has the right to direct our behavior in certain
    		ways as employees.  If we don't like it, we can seek
    		employment elsewhere (they wouldn't stop any of us if
    		we chose to leave because of not being able to put up
    		a calendar of women in bathing suits.)  

    			Personally, I don't think /dave has a thing
    		to worry about.  He doesn't work at a site that is
    		frequently visited by customers (like I do.)  I think
    		his calendar is totally safe.  I think that's fine.
    
    			In other words, I could have respected his
    		position with no problem at all (even though I disagree)
    		if he hadn't included the idea that anyone who disagrees
    		with him has to be mentally deranged in some way.  He
    		suggested that many of us *could* want him to commit
    		suicide so that we wouldn't be reminded of the way men
    		have treated us in the past.  I think he was suggesting
    		something so far past what we were saying, that it was
    		completely absurd and insulting.
    
    			As I've stated repeatedly, I don't think /dave
    		is a sexist (and I don't think that putting up a picture
    		of semi-nude women is even a sexist act *IN ITSELF*!!)
    		Despite Douglas Williams trying to say that we equated
    		having to see pictures_like_that with being murdered
    		by Nazis,  seeing the pictures is *NOT* the same thing
    		as experiencing that which they represent.  They are merely
    		"symbols" of a much bigger and much more insidious
    		societal condition:  sexism.  The pictures are probably
    		also *SYMPTOMS* of the condition which plagues our
    		culture (i.e., the dehumanization of persons because
    		of their potentiality as OBJECTS of sexual gratification.)
    		
    			Therefore, as much as I do *NOT* think that
    		/dave (or Bob, although I'm not as familiar with his
    		notes as I am with /dave's) can be called a sexist for
    		what he's written in this note, I do think that one
    		can say that he showed a tremendous arrogance and lack
    		of tolerance for the fact that others have a different
    		opinion.
    
    			It seems to be common in NOTES to see this sort
    		of argument ("If *I* think xxx or yyy, then a person
    		would have to be *CRAZY* to disagree with me.  After
    		all, my opinions are always more valid than anyone
    		else's.")  Bob's comment about "they must be bitches
    		who get undressed in the dark" really threw me -- he
    		thinks that people who disagree with him on this have
    		*SEXUAL* problems.  (Later, when I questioned his comment,
    		he said something about my not knowing much about people
    		if I didn't know that people say things like that behind
    		people's backs.)  Well, he said that *HERE* (not behind
    		anyone's back) in response to opinions that didn't agree
    		with his.  That was part of his argument in favor of
    		his posters.  (I think that was one h*ll of an arrogant
    		position to take.)
    
    			It would certainly be nice if we could discuss
    		things without people taking those kinds of positions.
    		Of course, some folks have a long history of jumping
    		into notes' discussions with both barrels loaded (saying
    		that it's all black and white, and that they have the
    		*ONE TRUE POSITION*!)  It may be common to see that,
    		and may not bother anyone else, but (speaking solely
    		for *myself*), it bothers me.  
    
    			My personal opinion is that this sort of
    		attitude makes it extremely difficult to conduct almost
    		any sort of rational discussion among reasonable people.
    
    							Suzanne....

re .127:    
I went back and read those replies (.15 and .21) again.
So /dave considers his calendar to be harmless art, not sexual material.
Bob liked the Angels and considered the women pictured in his posters
to be "neat".  Bob states that his usual reaction to objections
to such posters is to view the sexuality of the objector in a stereotyped
manner.

The best response I can think of appears in .29:

>    Some women have been hurt cruelly by the way society objectifies
>    women (rape is one of the easiest and most extreme examples). Once
>    they've been slapped in the face with the horror, it sensitizes
>    them to other forms of objectification (is that a noun???). And
>    each one hurts, to some extent.

In particular... has anyone else been reading this topic and 189.* (Date
Rape) at the same time?  I found it painful to even READ some of those
stories!  And then in 189.29 I read:

>    I hope all men reading these sensitive and highly personal recounts...
>						 really think about these
>    situations.  Picture your wife/girlfriend/sister or daughter in the 
>    situation, (the majority of them HAVE been in very similar situations 
>    at least once)...

Not as a personal statement to /dave or Bob, but as an open question to
all:

If you know (or can imagine) someone who has been in a similar situation,
wouldn't you take *their* word for it that this type of material *does*
reopen the wounds and *does* treat women as objects?  Whether or not it
seems rational and logical, I'd feel I had to accept this, out of nothing
more than compassion.

Bob Leigh

    There's a lot to be said for manners, sensitivity and common sense.

    It's hard to think of anything that hasn't been said yet in this
    discussion, but this is NOTES, after all:
    
    It's a well-known phenomenum that people are more apt to be callous
    (or shall we say "direct"?) when communicating in the more-or-less
    impersonal medium of NOTES than in face-to-face encounters. I
    suspect that an individual with a cheesecake calendar would be much
    more likely to appreciate the offense it gives if the offendee were
    to make the point in person, but defending oneself through this
    glass screen is a lot easier.
    
    There are clearly some gray areas to offensive material. I do have
    an aerial map of my home town (Carlisle) outside my office, and I
    suppose it could offend somebody from, say, Chelmsford (you know -
    jealousy). A BLISS programmer might be offended by one of those C
    posters. These are examples of unreasonable offense, and I wouldn't
    feel to bad about defending the display of the Carlisle picture.
    (C might be another matter... yecch.) 

    Personally, I can't imagine keeping something like a swimsuit
    calendar at work, since it's perfectly obvious that there are some
    people that would take offense. My office is not my property, and I
    have no right to post anything that could cause offense in a
    coworker. For the same reason (watch out - we may be returning to
    the topic), cheesecake in a Company-sponsored demo is inappropriate
    and should be stopped. There might be some customers that would
    be favorably inclined to such a display, and they might outnumber
    those that wouldn't appreciate them, and some would point to
    this as financial incentive for the practice. However, one of
    DEC's basic principals is "Do The Right Thing", and I believe
    that would outweigh any other consideration.

    	Cheesecake should not be used by DEC to sell products.  It
    shouldn't be used by any company for that matter.  People should
    not hang pin up pictures in the work place if other people are offended
    by same.  Pin up pictures are one of the many symbols of sexism
    in the U.S. society.  Sexism in our society has been and continues
    to be a major problem, though things are improving slowly.
    
    	What should be done?  One thing we can do is boycott the producers
    of such material.  But we should not single out pin up pictures
    or magazines.  A lot of advertising has strong sexual signals, some
    positive but most negative.  We should not purchase products -
    including DEC products - which are advertised in sexist ways.
    
    	Some of the producers whose products we should avoid are:
    
    		Calvin Kline                                 
    		Channel Perfumes	
    		Most producers of lipstick and nail polish
    		Most producers of home cleaning products
    
    	The list could continue but I believe the point has been made
    - women in purely sexual roles (negative) are used to sell products
    to women just as much, if not more, as they are to men.  Consumer's
    Report publishes an analysis of commercials - limiting same to a
    look at whether or not the ads inform the public relative to the
    product.   There were published comments against advertisements
    which were purely sexist at one time.  Possibly it is time to once
    again start a media watch and boycot products which use sexism to
    sell products.
    
    Douglas

    >I have repeated again and
    >again that having the object doesn't make the person a sexist.
    
    *No one* is disputing that.  In fact, I said in an earlier reply that
    I know that /dave is not sexist from his notes.  Maybe you're not
    either, but I don't know you.
    
    Listen One More Time... WE DON'T LIKE THE PICTURES!  The *pictures* portray
    sexism to us! (the "us" is the numerous women in this file who have
    said that we don't like it.  Not one woman here has said they *like*
    the pictures.  That doesn't make me an expert at knowing what all
    women want - it's just an *observation*).
    
    >It is generally stated by the courts in the US that full
    >frontal nudity is not obscene if the genitalia are not shown.
    >Kind of hard to do with a male, but not with a woman since
    >breasts are not genitalia.
    
    A lot of things have been stated by the courts that are wrong. 
    I'm not saying this is wrong, but as an argument it's weak.
    
    	-Ellen

Please forgive me God, for I have sinned.

My abject apologies to the respondents in this note. In my poor unassuming
manner, I believed that you were all individuals. I now see that I was
wrong. Obviously you are the single voice of all humankind and are the
only ones that I should listen to. Obviously, any other people that I
might talk to, whose ideas may be different from yours, are simply
foolish children that have not been made to understand that your view-
point is the one and only. I will go hide in my cave and not trouble
you with my thoughts and beliefs.

    

re: .125
	Given all the wrongs mentioned, what can be done?  What is it
	specifically that you would like to see done to solve the 
	problems mentioned?  Can it be cured or greatly diminished?

Good question. I don't think that there's much chance to change anyone's
mind on this issue, sexism in general or other forms of prejudice.

A good tactic might be to more-or-less give up on changing people's current
sexist attitudes, and concentrate on educating children so that they
don't develop those attitudes.  It should be easier to keep people from
developing prejudiced beliefs than to change existing beliefs.

It certainly won't be easy. We have friends who try to raise their kids in a
non-sexist manner, but have to put up with influences of other kids, and
those kids' parents, and TV, and movies, and everything else in our culture.

What *do* the schools do about this, if anything?  I guess that deserves a
new topic.  I've only got 164 unseen notes to get through first...

					-- hal

    Tne SI swinsuit calendar does exist in image file format for
    dsiplay on Ultrix/GPX WS. Ordinarily I wouldn't trouble to
    look at nor even notice one, but since its such a hot button,
    any rabble rouser wanting to cause a ruckus has an easy handle.
    So, get mad if you want to, for even negative attention from 
    the opposite sex is better than being ignored.
    
    By all means, blow up. Someone out there is laughing at all the
    self righteousness.
    
    Slings, arrows to /dev/null.

This note has really helped me see some new things in women's 
fight for equality.  As I've thought about the issues raised 
here, some questions arise that feel unresolved by this issue.  

Although many of the replies to this note have been in response
to displaying materials people find offensive at work, I'd like
to know what you consider to be legitimate boundaries for the
publishing and purchasing of materials that expose the human
body.  (I say "human body" in general, but more exactly, let's 
limit this to talking about adult women.)

Specifically, do you consider that:

- photographs/videos of nude/seminude women should be exempted
from the first amendment granting freedom of press? 

- pornographic materials directly or indirectly results in the
oppression of women (specifically rape and violent acts) by men? 

- pornography is out of control and laws need to be enacted to 
curtail or end it?  If so, what criteria is appropriate to make 
those judgements?

And from another perspective, I'm curious to hear from
contributors why so many women seem to support the opposite or
just not care.  Why are beauty pagents *growing* in popularity
(there are now pagents for adolescent girls)?  And (in response
to a recent reply), Why are the young men and women in their
teens and early twentys today so apathetic about these issues?  
Is this a conservative backlash to the recent gains made?

Sign me,
Confused
(Chuck)

    
    I've read a lot of the comments in this notes file and a lot of
    very valid points have been raised, but.....there still seems to
    be a complete lack of understanding about what is offensive to myself
    and a lot of other women.
    
    We do not like to be valued according to our looks only, but this
    is what is still happening.  We are constantly bombarded with subtle
    and blatant pressure from the media to conform to an ideal standard
    (infamous page 3 dollies) or be considered failures in our lives.
    
    The images of woman are always so perfect they are immpossible to
    obtain, so we go through life never "measuring up" to what we are
    told we should be.
    
    Nobody gives a thought to the hours of preparation these pictures
    take or the 'aids' that are used to achieve them.
    
    I really resent the subtle message that i am a failure...so Dave,
    this is why i don't like your calanders very much !!!   Would you
    hang this calander up in your home ?
    
    
    			Lisa... 

    After reading all the notes... I have one questions/concern...
    I am also somewhat offended when suggestive pictures are hung in
    offices but to blame the opposite sex (men) as being sexist because
    of these pictures, I don't feel it's right..
    
    Questions is Why do women allowe themselves to be pictures thusly.
    
    One perfect answer that I can come  up with is that is pays a lot
    of money.  So if woman are truely offended why do they encourage
    this practice to continue... How many spend money in purchasing
    cosmetics, swimsuits that barely coverup... etc which in turn
    encourages this type of hype because it sells the products.
    
    I myself don't really have an answer but the questions above did
    honestly enter upon reading this file.  I would appreciate it if
    other readers would come up with some sincere suggestions why.
    
    		Marie
     
    
    

>Specifically, do you consider that:

>- photographs/videos of nude/seminude women should be exempted
>from the first amendment granting freedom of press? 

	"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, 
	 or of the press ..."

Nothing should be exempted from first ammendment protection. It sets a
terrible precedent, and who's to decide just what rates an exemption? (But
what about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? I don't know; maybe that
should be allowed, too. There are other laws to cover that.)

What if you wanted to take such photos in the privacy of your own home?
That's apparently harmless, but would have to be included.  What's semi-nude,
anyway? We'd wind up with a law prohibiting a photograph of something that's
allowed in person (topless/nude beaches, undressing in your own bedroom.)
There was a law somewhere in the last couple of years about kiddie porn,
prohibiting photos of nude children (and other things).  I'm sure everyone's
parents have pictures of them nude in the bath -- there aren't enough jails
for all of the parents who'd be arrested!

Besides, that wouldn't get rid of the problem.  There's a reason why
pornography exists, and banning it only deals with a symptom, not the
problem.

>- pornographic materials directly or indirectly results in the
>oppression of women (specifically rape and violent acts) by men? 

I agree with others in this note who've drawn similar connections, but some
proof either way would be better than feelings.

>- pornography is out of control and laws need to be enacted to 
>curtail or end it?  If so, what criteria is appropriate to make 
>those judgements?

Again, legislation isn't the answer.  Find out what the *real* problem is,
and address that.

    For the women in this conference:
    
    Did your mothers ever tell you "that if you dress LIKE THAT you
    better be ready to ACT LIKE THAT"? 
    
    I personally would never do "pinups" but the women in those photographs
    will have to live with what they do.  Yes, we sometimes look at
    magazines and say, gee, she's too skinny and I bet she doesn't really
    look like that without all that makeup.  You know what, that's right.
    They don't look like that and pretty soon, they'll be just like
    you and me: knowledgeable that the beauty of people is inside their
    bodies and not on them.
    
    You have to keep telling yourself, "I'm glad that I have a good
    job, a good family (if this applies), a good relationship with my
    SO and I don't have to be "exposed" to make money.  I just have
    to open my mind and let the money flow in".
                                              
    

    Getting back to the original question, about the Cheryl Tiegs
    graphics demo/pin-up -- I just looked at a new section in the policy
    handbook. It's "Proper use of Digital Computers, Systems and
    Networks", section 5.46, 17 Nov 86, 2 pages.  Here's a relevant
    excerpt:

	 Definition: For purposes of this policy, improper use
	 includes, but is not limited to, the use of [systems] ... for
	 personal purposes that are contrary to Company philosophy or
	 policy, [or] for purposes that interfere with the Company's
	 business activities... Examples of misuse could be
	 transmitting offensive, harassing and/or devaluing statements,
	 developing and transmitting inappropriate graphics,
	 transmitting sexual or ethnic slurs or jokes, ...
	 communicating matters of private conviction or philosophy, ...

I think that this graphic pin-up falls under this policy. 

There's a reference to Policy 6.03, "Harrassment Policy", which might be of
further interest. All managers and supervisors have copies of the policy
manual, which is an orange binder with orange pages. There's lots of
useful information in there. (If you travel on business, it's really useful
to read it to know what you're entitled to.)



from .0:
>	Sometimes I'm not sure whether something is worth complaining
>	about, or whether I'm just being too sensitive to what others
>	could find as normal.  

Everything is worth complaining about. There's a button outside my office
that says "The more you complain, the longer God lets you live."  I expect
to die a very old man.
					-- hs

  It all boils down to a question of sensitivity.
 
  Imagine that your child has an unreasoning fear of snakes.  Do you
  have the right to paper your living room with snake photos?  Certainly.
  *Should* you paper your living room with snake photos?

  What do *you* think?

  JP

    I have been thinking about this note for a while and I'd like
    to address it from a different direction.
    
    Is it ok to have pictures of people on calendars? Yes
    Is it ok to have pictures of women and men in their national
    costumes (Swiss national dress, Swedish etc.) Yes
    What is the message that is being given by using attractive
    people in attractive costumes on a calendar? This is an attractive
    person in an attractive costume that people would like to look at.
    
    I think it is reasonable to include at least *some* pictures of
    women and men in bathing suits in the above category. (as an aside
    here the American contestant in either the Miss World or the Miss
    Universe contest wore a bathing suit as her "national costume'.)
    
    I would object to pictures of women that were made with the intent
    "this is a woman's body to be leered at", rather than "this is a
    pretty picture of a woman in an attractive costume". The question
    of course is how do you distinguish between the two. I cannot agree
    with the point of view that all pictures of women in bathing suits
    fall in the former category, or the latter for that matter.
    
    I am not offended by the pictures of women in swim suits that my
    son hangs on his bed room wall. I would be *very* offended if he
    hung up a picture out of Playboy or Hustler.

    and in response to .144 if anyone is offended by the snake in one
    of the wildlife photos I have hanging on my wall I would take it
    down. :-)
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie, I think you have identified an important issue.  I imagine
    that many women could quickly sort the same set of photos into two
    categories: interesting/aesthetic and those that present women as
    sex objects.
    
    I wonder if most women would make the same distinctions, and I also
    wonder how men would approach the same task.

re: .145 (Bonnie)
>    What is the message that is being given by using attractive
>    people in attractive costumes on a calendar? This is an attractive
>    person in an attractive costume that people would like to look at.

I was just thinking about this point this morning, so I'm glad your note
prompted me to write about it. It may be a minor point, but it bears
discussion. 

I think that "attractive" is an important word here. Almost all ads (include
your hypothetical calendar here) show "attractive" people (even if it's only
the ad agency's view). When I see any "just plain folks", it always takes me
by surprise.

Part of the message in using attractive people in ads is, "Hey, these people
are attractive! Eat our lard-filled donuts, and you'll look just like them."
Or, "Brush your teeth with this saccharine and preservative-filled stuff and
you'll be attractive and have sex every night with attractive people, just
like these attractive people are doing.

I believe that being constantly exposed to something makes a person used to
it, and to expect that it's the norm. Seeing only attractive people in ads
(or TV shows, or movies...) gives the viewer a biased view of what people
look like.

Someone else made a point in this note about associating women with sex due
to exposure to pinup photos. Good point, but it's a lot more than just pinup
photos: The Calendar section of the today's Boston Globe has a cover picture
of Theresa Russell from the movie "Black Widow". I was a little surprised to
see it, because it shows her shirt (or whatever, the photo isn't very good)
open enough to see more of her breast than one usually sees in a newspaper.
Well, that's certainly an attractive picture. I don't think that it's
appropriate, however, because another message that I read in it is "We'll
just use sex to sell some papers today."

>    I think it is reasonable to include at least *some* pictures of
>    women and men in bathing suits

I agree with you on this, and I'd bet many/most of the others here do too.
The problem is: when is that appropriate, and which ones are appropriate.
That's what we've been discussing here, and what I don't expect we will
settle.

>    I am not offended by the pictures of women in swim suits that my
>    son hangs on his bed room wall. I would be *very* offended if he
>    hung up a picture out of Playboy or Hustler.

I don't want to get too picky here, but many of the pictures in those
magazines show women in swim suits, too.  Is it any more or less offensive if
the photos come from the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue (which only
treats women as objects once a year), instead of Playboy (whose sole purpose
is that treatment)?

    RE: .147  "buy this paper..."
    
    I doubt that the photo on the front of today's Globe calendar section
    caused any surge in circulation.  The calendar section is in the
    middle of the paper and I cannot imagine anybody thumbing through
    it at the newsstand to see if it had a leerable likeness worth taking
    home to drool over.  The calendar section is the first thing I read
    on Thursdays and I didn't even notice the picture on the front.
    
    
    

    re .147 (hal)
    What I meant by pictures from Playboy and Huster was *not* the
    swim suit kind.

    This discussion brings an interesting analogy to mind: brains vs.
    physical appearance.

    In both cases, the raw material is something you were born with, and
    hence not something to be inordinately proud of as a personal
    accomplishment. However, in both cases it requires a fair amount of
    determination and effort to take advantage and develop this
    genetically-derived characteristic. In the ABSTRACT, then, a
    model who makes a lot of money posing in swimsuits or less is
    no more or less being taken advantage of than an engineer who
    makes a lot of money through intellectual pursuits.
    
    One of the primary objections to the use of sexy photographs of
    women is that they cause the women to be viewed as objects, rather
    than as people. In this we find the biggest distinction between the
    two cases: it's not really the nature of the resource being
    exploited that causes the problem, but the nature of the
    exploitation itself. Even this isn't a complete distinction: an
    engineer is effectively an object whose purpose it to create some
    technical work. So it's not the FACT of "objects", it's the NATURE
    of the "objects", and the context carried by that nature in the
    present society. Socialists might be just as offended by the
    exploitation of "engineer objects" as feminists are of "sex
    objects". 
    
    Is there a point to all this? Sort of. In dealing with issues
    of this sort it's sometimes useful to stand back and view them
    from a perspective outside the usual frames of reference. In
    a society in which women did not have a history of being treated
    as second-class citizens, and especially in one in which physical
    appearance were not USED out of context (or priority), the display
    of a swimsuit calendar would probably pose no problem. We don't
    have that society, so the context in which this kind of material
    is used needs to be carefully considered. And the workplace is
    not a context in which it is reasonable.

RE: .146
    
>    I imagine that many women could quickly sort the same set of photos
>    into two categories: interesting/aesthetic and those that present women
>    as sex objects. 
    
    An excellent point; may I ask who should be the one to sort them? Would
    you let the person in the photograph decide if the photograph presents
    them in an interesting/aesthetic manner or just as a sex object?  Or
    would you rather be the one to make that judgment on their behalf?  Why
    wouldn't you grant that right to the models themselves? Do you believe
    that those models have made a wrong career choice?  In short, do
    you believe that those models are victims of environment as opposed
    to professional career persons?
    
- Vikas

    A woman who decides to be a model has made a career choice. 
    It is her right to make such a choice, it is not an easy way to
    earn a living and it is always to be hoped that any picture she 
    poses for is one she is personally comfortable with and not 
    something she feels forced into doing to pay her bills.
    
    As for sorting pictures into the "two categories" I think that
    anyone who looks at such pictures mentally sorts them. And what
    some find acceptible others do not. The point being made here is
    that at least some bathing suit pictures of women fall in the first
    category not the second.

    Bonnie

    re .152
    
    I am not objecting to the existence of such pictures, or the right
    of a woman to model for a photo in which she is depicted as a sex
    object.  Or the right of anyone to hang them in their home.
    
    [I have some moral objections to photos which depict violence being
    done to women, but that's another issue...]
    
    I think that most women could quickly sort through a set of photos
    and divide them into two categories: interesting/aesthetic and those
    that present women as sex objects.  My untested guess is that there
    would be a fairly high correlation among "sorters".  
    
    I do not think that photos which present women as sex objects are 
    appropriate in a place of work.  Just as I don't think that photos
    which depict black people as "happy darkies" or photos that depict 
    Jewish people as "greedy Shylocks" [fill in your favorite group/
    stereotype here] belong in a place of work.  
    
    Which brings us back around to all of the previous discussion...this
    topic is beginning to feel a bit like the song "There's a hole in
    the bucket"...
    
    

	RE: .155
    
   
  >  There are too many people around that want to impose their beliefs
  >  on everyone else!
    
  >  I get kind of tired of seeing someone grabbing the soapbox and
  >  proclaiming that their way of thinking is for all. 
    
  >  Live and let live.  

    		Sure do agree with you, Cal.  It bothers me, too,
    	when I see folks who come in here to say "Well, if semi-nude
    	pictures don't bother me, then someone would have to be wierd
    	or immature if the pictures bother them."  I've seen some of
    	those same folks say that others in this conference are being
    	intolerant (or whatever) by expressing their *feelings* that
    	they find semi-nude pictures in an office environment a bit
    	lacking in taste and/or somewhat inappropriate for an office
    	environment.
    
    		It has amazed me that some folks have reacted so
    	defensively to this issue.  In the "Rape Date" note, I noticed
    	that /dave explained why he got involved in this note -- he
    	said he felt he needed to defend himself for having an SI swim-
    	suit calendar in his office.  He also mentioned that he felt
    	this way even though no one in this conference probably even
    	knew that he had the calendar.  It makes me *wonder* why he
    	(and others) have felt the need to defend their actions and
    	why most of them have chosen to do it by using such hostile
    	words (including a lot of name calling.)  I'm not referring
    	to you in particular, Cal (or to /dave.)  I just find the
    	whole thing rather curious.
    
    		I've been out of reach of the net (and notes) for a
    	couple of weeks -- I went back out to the Field for DEC for
    	two weeks -- so I've had a chance to forget about this whole
    	thing for awhile.  It's given me a much less emotional per-
    	spective on the issue.
    
    		My original feelings (about semi-nude and even totally-
    	nude pictures at the workplace or anywhere else) was to 
    	desensitize myself to them.  I did the same thing with overt
    	sexual prejudice at the workplace.  I overtly *non-reacted*
    	to it all because there was no way I was going to give anyone
    	that sort of power over me or my feelings (*OR* my career.)
    	If it was *very* uncomfortable for me, I simply moved on to a
    	better job somewhere else.  I made an absolute *point* of
    	going to a better job (and making sure that the people who
    	caused my discomfort were *aware* that I was now in a better
    	job, and at a better salary.)  Someone once said that the
    	best revenge against someone who has hurt you is to do well
    	in your life and not be bothered by their actions.  (By the
    	way, I never left a job because of semi-nude or totally-nude
    	pictures.  *AND* -- I've never wanted to change groups within
    	DEC for reasons involving sexual prejudice.  Just wanted to
    	make that clear.)  The following paragraph refers to problems
    	I saw for women in non-traditional jobs in the 70's (outside
    	DEC.)
    
    		In light of all the other things that could and did
    	happen to women in non-traditional jobs, semi-nude or totally-
    	nude pictures were the least of my concerns.  They were merely
        very minor annoyances (comparatively speaking.)  I never made
    	judgments about the men who put them up.  I *knew* that they
    	simply didn't know how I felt.  And I never bothered to explain
    	it to them (because I didn't find the issue all that important
    	at the time.)
    
    		No person's semi-nude picture has the power to upset
    	me.  But -- I do see the pictures as a symbol of something that
    	I'd rather not be reminded of at the workplace.  I don't for
    	a single minute assume anything about *why* a person would put
    	up such a picture at work.  I *never* thought for a minute that
    	/dave was lecherously drooling all day in his cubicle at the
    	women in swimsuits on his wall.  If he says that he doesn't
    	find the calendar sexual, I'm ready to believe that *he* honestly
    	doesn't!!  But *his* feelings are not the standard by which
    	we all see semi-nude pictures -- so other people *do* see them
    	as sexual (and their opinion is *not* wierd or immature just
    	because it doesn't happen to agree with /dave's!)  And it's
    	*not* a minority opinion just because no one has directly
    	complained to /dave about his calendar.  People *do* tend to
    	be more open in notes than they do in real life.
    
    		So -- what we've discovered here is that we are all
    	individuals who have differing opinions on this issue.  Why
    	should that be such a surprise?
    
    		There isn't a single reason in the whole world why
    	anyone should feel the need to react defensively about this
    	issue.  If you happen to hang up semi-nude pictures, no big
    	deal.  Some other folks happen to find them offensive at
    	work.  So now you know.  This note has been educational for
    	some (including me.)
    
    		It's OK to put the verbal weapons to rest and just
    	accept that "what people find offensive" is purely subjective
    	and that we are never going to agree on it in this case.

    							Suzanne...

In case anyone cares, I find religious artifacts and pictures IN THE
WORK PLACE offensive.  I'm not saying I find religion offensive, however
I believe it's a private matter for the home.

HOWEVER, I do not make ANY attempt at forcing my belief relative to the
religious material on others.  How do I handle this.  I simply don't
place things in MY office that offend me, if the things that I place in
my office offend you, don't come to my office, we can meet in yours if
you'd rather.

Lets face it, each one of us is offended by SOMETHING someone else does,
or has.  Several folks are offended by my long hair, and blue jeans at
work.  Unfortunate, tell me if you like, but don't try and make ME 
responsible for what offends YOU, and certainly DON'T expect me to change
it.

By the way, I don't feel photos of male or female semi nude, nude etc.
are appropriate at work either, so I don't have any..

CCS

    Clyde,
    	I would certainly catorigize the signs and memos and etc that
    traverse the net (and are posted here and there) around the 25th
    of December to be 'religious artifacts.'    Last December, I received
    a note from my manager wishing me (along with the rest of the group)
    a 'Merry Christmas.'   Now, I was highly offended--but I did nothing
    because I understood clearly what was *meant* by that wish--a desire
    that the December season bring me joy.    *HOWEVER*, a nudie posted
    on someman's wall has a few interpretations--and at best the meaning
    is non-negative to my person and at worst it contributes to women
    being considered solely for their bodies.
    	I cannot compare religious artifacts with pornographic or
    semi-pornographic pictures.
    
    Tamar

re: .158

I do not consider nude, or semi nude photos, be it male or female,
"pornographic".  Websters clearly defines pornography as depiction of
erotic behaviour intended to cause sexual excitement.  I am NOT excited
by photos, (pieces of paper), regardless of the subject.  I can only
assume that these photos are not intended to cause sexual excitement..

Actually, I am aware of certain publications that ARE intended to cause
sexual excitement, I doubt seriously that these are the subject of this
note file (Cheryl in a NET bathing suit, sexual excitement, come on).

I really DON'T care about the religious artifacts, but the point is,
regardless of what someone puts on thier wall(s) someone else certainly 
can CHOOSE to be offended.

If you or anyone care to be offended by what I have in my office, simply
STAY OUT..  IF WE NEED TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER WE CAN DO IT IN YOUR OFFICE.


..CCS

    re -1:
    
    >...somene else can CHOOSE to be offended...
    
    And *you* can CHOOSE to offend.
    
    	-Ellen

    Stop shouting, Clyde!  (said his ex wife)....
    
    I agree.  With Clyde.  Personally, I don't find nude bodies
    offensive.  For heavens sake, I LIKE men who appreciate the
    female body!  I like women who appreciate the male body.  I
    like ....well, never mind, you understand what I mean.  I DO
    NOT feel that photos of nude women degrade women in general!
    Not even those pictorials in "adult" magazines.  For heaven's
    sake, if you don't like them, don't buy them.  But don't in-
    fringe on MY right to buy them by insisting that they be un-
    available.
    
    I personally find fur coats exremely offensive.  So I don't
    own one.  But I'm certainly not going to tell you not to 
    own one, although if I know you well enough, I might attempt
    to educate you on the horrors of trapping.
    
    At any rate, it's your work area to decorate as you see fit.
    Period.  If I don't like it, I won't go there.  And I expect
    the same respect in my work area.  I surround myself with
    sayings and photos and various and sundry items that bring
    ME pleasure....
    
    

    Re .161, now you're talking offensive.  I find fur coats offensive
    also - a lot more offensive than nude bodies.  
    
    Lorna
    

    RE 181.161
    
    "...if you don't like them, don't buy them..."
    
    We are not discussing abridging someone's rights to buy or not to
    buy pictures, but whether that someone displays them in a place
    I *cannot avoid* going to, ie her/his cubicle.
    
    Tamar

    re fur coats:
    A fellow woman came into work the other day with a full length fox
    fur coat.  She wanted everyone to see it.  She *modeled it for us,
    and then asked me what I thought.  She wasnt' too pleased when I
    said that I guess some people are into death, they like to wear
    dead animals on their backs. 
    vivian
    
    

I object to people wearing fur coats, but I can't really say I'm offended.
Now, if I had a fur pelt, I would be VERY MUCH offended.

Don.

RE 164

I can understand your dislike of fur coats, but I can't understand is why
you feel the need to be rude to this woman because she doesn't share your
beliefs. 

It seems that attacking the woman is a poor way to make her more aware of 
what the coat represents to you and why it bothers you.

-vicki

    Re .166, yes, everyone is different but some people (myself included)
    do not believe that that gives them the right to murder innocent
    animals simply so that a woman (or man) can walk around in a fur
    coat.  You are worried about someone being verbally rude.  *I* am
    concerned about the needless killing of a living creature.  
    
    I'm sorry that this is off the topic of nude pin-ups, but I have
    very strong feelings about animals and how they are treated by people.
    
    Lorna
    

    Kudos to you, Vivian, and Lorna, many thanks for sharing
    my thoughts on this subject!!  Judging from the number of
    furs in Colorado, I thought I was the only one who felt so
    strongly about the subject.
    
    Hmmmmm-Cheryl Tieg wearing a fur coat with nothing under it?
    Now THAT would be the height of offensive behavior, wouldn't
    it?  A nude fox?  That would be worse!!
    
    

    re .166:
    
    I agree.  I don't see a need for fur coats and wouldn't wear one,
    but that really was no reason to be rude to the woman.  I probably
    would not have said anything.  Appearing disinterested would have
    gotten the message across in a more-kind manner.
    
    	-Ellen
    

    hmmmmm. I find no problem telling someone when they're being sexist,
    and I also feel comfortable telling someone that I think killing
    animals for fur coats is barbaric and unnecessary. I don't look
    at either of these statements of opinion as being rude, though I
    could see someone who wanted me to laugh at a sexist joke, or admire
    their new fur coat, thinking I was being rude. But I don't think
    that reaction is. Am I missing something?
    	Mez

    One question - are all of you people who are so vehemently against fur
    coats also vegetarians?
    
    Fur coats keep you warm.
    Animal meat gives you energy.
    
    You can stay warm without killing animals.
    You can also get energy without killing animals.
    
    It's perfectly fine to eat meat and not wear a fur coat, but if
    you insist on imposing your views on fur coats on others *and* you are
    a meat-eater, then this is HYPOCRISY. If this is the case, then you
    have no right to be rude to the woman.
    
    (This kind of sounds more like SOAPBOX right now, doesn't it?)
    
    	-Ellen

    re -.1:  My objection to fur coats is that the rest of the animal
    is wasted.  I have no problem with someone who wants to shoot Bambi
    AS LONG AS they use every single bit of Bambi to feed, clothe,
    whatever.  Shooting Bambi to put his antlers up on a wall or to
    make a fur coat (throwing out the rest) strikes me as a waste. 
    But back to the topic...
    
    re .67:  Lorna, I think your reaction to somone wearing a fur coat has
    everything to do with the topic of CT (etc) posters on a wall at work
    and how to react to them; many people have said that it is their right
    to display such things as they see fit and you have no right to prevent
    that display. 
    		- Do we have the right to object to what we see as
    		  extremely objectionable? 
    I think so.
    
    		- Do we have the right to unilaterally force someone
    		  to change what we see as extremely objectionable?
    
    I don't think so.
    
    		- If we as a society decide something is morally
    		  objectionable, do we have the right to force a 
    		  change?
    
    Yes (that's why we make laws) and No (what if a majority of society
    finds the behavior of a minority objectionable?  That minority could:
    be sacrificing human beings to their gods, feel that although they
    are black they have a right to sit anywhere on a bus they want,
    be professional women objecting to photographic depictions of women
    in the office area).
    
    Where do we cross the line from simple rudeness/insensitivity  to
    morally wrong?  Dunno, but I still hate nude photos in the workplace.
    
    Lee
   

    On fur coats - there are those who make the distinction between
    domestically raised fur bearing animals who are presumably humanely 
    slaughtered and wild animals who are killed by trapping, hunting,
    or clubbing. One of the issues with fur coats then is the way the
    animal had to suffer to produce the coat, and the ecological impact
    if the animal is endangered.
    
    Recently one of the advice columnists printed a letter by a woman
    who despite her out spoken opposition to animal fur garments had
    been given an expensive lynx coat. She sold it and donated the
    money to animal rights/ecolgical types organizations. The giver
    accused her of being insensitive and rude. I believe the response
    was that a gift is the recipient's to do with as they please.
    I think I would have done the same thing.
    

    Actually, I accept the fact that some animals provide
    me with food and clothing.  I wear leather, which ob-
    viously is a byproduct of the meat industry.  My ob-
    jection is to the brutality involved in "harvesting"
    the furs.  I have photos of animals in steel jaw traps.
    Some of these animals -including a bald eagle-are not
    even the "target" animals.  Wait, I see I'm going to
    start lecturing here.  The point is, one should not
    encourage an industry that involves pain and suffering
    to animals.  And I have no qualms about educating the
    ignorant.  I have a whole stack of brochures, including
    photos, to hand to those individuals who wear furs, with-
    out thinking of how they are contributing to the brutal
    death of an innocent being.
    
    

    I don't really object to rabbit or mink coats.  I used to, but after I
    thought about it a while I figured that they were raised on farms, just
    like chickens and cows, and that they probably wouldn't exist in
    the numbers they do if they weren't bred for this purpose.  I also
    assume that they die a quick, clean death.  Minks really are nasty
    little critters and rabbit is a common meat outside the USA.  The
    farmers probably make as much use of the rest of the animal as
    possible.
    
    Now coyote coats is a whole different ballpark.  I've never heard
    of a coyote ranch and I assume that the coyote furs come from wild
    animals.  Ecologically it is a bad idea, the other parts of the
    animal are not used and the animal probably suffers.  I would 
    certainly never consider supporting this activity by buying a
    coat made from wild animals.
    
    Just my opinion...
    			Barbara b.

    re.175
    well all i can say is that i am from idaho and most of my relatives
    are cattle and sheep ranchers.the consider the coyote a pest and
    a danger to livestock.they shoot the coyote on sight.
    i think i had heard that we are running into the same situation
    that we had with tghe deer,over population,and not enough food
    for them to eat. i know my relatives would not consider wearing
    a coyote fur coat though.
    
    							kelly

    I read in a recent trip report that the Cheryl Tiegs VAXstation
    picture was a big draw at Canadian DECUS.  Sigh...
    
    					Steve

    Not only do Idaho farmers kill coyotes on sight, but the US Government
    sponsors similar through various federal and state land management
    programs. The skins of the coyotes are sold to commercial fur-dressers
    to offset the cost of the pest control operations, and the rest of the
    carcase is sold to processing plants if it is practical.
    
    Let me just add that I also am opposed to trophy hunting, but have no
    problem with commercial farm production, or the destruction of vermin
    (wild Mink are now listed as vermin in Britain for example, and foxes
    are destroyed for various reasons in Britain also). However I am vehemently
    opposed to the destruction of endangered species or the substantive
    disturbance of the wild ecosystem for monetary gain (or most other purposes
    for that matter).
    
    In fact I have particularly little concern over foxes since they are
    a major rabies vector.
    
    As for the prospect of Cheryl Tiegs in a fur coat: how many of the
    respondants here could positively identify a real fur coat from an
    artificial one in a picture (I can assure you that studios get VERY
    hot and modeling in a real fur coat is a terrible experience for the
    model).
    
    /. Ian .\

    re:rudeness
    
    Unless I am grossly offended, I usually try to keep my mouth shut
    about things I find offensive.  But if someone actively solicits
    my opinion, even if they are looking for and needing a compliment,
    I am likely to give my honest opinion.  
    
    I think the initial situation described here was not an example
    of rudeness because the opinion was solicited.  If the writer of
    the note had walked up to a woman on the street wearing a fur and
    started giving a lecture, that would have been quite a different
    situation!
    

    For those who found my reply as rude.....
    My reaction was due to something that I *do* find totally offensive.
    I would not have said anything at all if she hadn't *insisted* that
    I give my reaction.  I consider myself a passive objecter, but I 
    couldn't remain quiet that time.  We all protest in different ways.
    
    vivian

    re. 180
    	I didn't find your reply to the woman who solicited your opinion
    rude.
    
    	It was honest and gutsy!
    
    	more power to you!
    
    	It's not easy stating an unpopular opinion.....
    
    	and I know!
    
    	rik
    

This was printed in Desperado today.  I have the poster's permission
to include it here.  He does not read WOMANNOTES.  You should understand
that Desperado contributions are not always particularly serious.

Martin.

From:	25172::MCVAY        "Pete McVay VRO5-2/Y3 273-3339"
To:	BOOKIE::NEILSEN,MCVAY
Subj:	Is this perverted enough for DESPERADO?

     This is the  LAT.   There's  ten  million  bits  out  there,  all
churning  around  as  though they're important.  Yeah.  I should know.
Every microsecond I have to trace down some poor header for  an  irate
user  who  can't  tell  a  distributed  queue  from  a terminal-slaved
printer.

     I was sitting there  thinking  these  morbid  thoughts  when  she
logged  in.   I  tell  ya, I've seen some users in my day, but she was
somethin' else.  She had
                                 NOTE

             Due to new net  regulations,  several  paragraphs
        are intentionally left blank.  If you really MUST have
        a description, insert  any  two  paragraphs  from  the
        latest edition of "Hustler" or "Screw".

     "Where's my file?", she typed.

     "$ What?" I replied.  I was still scanning.

     "My flie!" she mistyped.  Real nervous.  I wondered what she  had
to  be  nervous  about.  "I PRINTed it ten minutes ago and now I can't
find it."

     "Which queue did you use?" I asked casually, while trying to flip
through  ELF  to  find out more about this broad.  There was somethin'
real funny about her--I mean, normally you  don't  find  these  upper-
management types rummaging around without ALL-IN-1 or DECmail support.
What was she doin' at the DCL level anyway?

     "I just said 'PRINT', and it was SUBMITted to CLUSTER_PRINT.  But
it didn't show up at the printer, and now it's not in que."

     "You mean 'queue'", I corrected, just to show her who was boss in
this  territory.  So my disk quota's only 1,000 blocks--but it's mine.
"You sure someone else didn't walk by and pick it up?"

     "Do a $SHOW  TIME,  Jocko!"  she  snapped.   "It's  1:00  in  the
morning.   The only people in the building are hackers, and they don't
work from hardcopy."

     "Okay!  Clam down." Damn!  Now she had ME making typos!  I buried
myself  in work to take my thoughts away from her looks.  A quick scan
of the distributed queues showed that they were empty.  Really  empty.
It gets lonely here at night, you know what I mean?  Those queues just
sit there silently, with empty lists so vast that you can hear marbles
roll down them like rocks in an alley.

     "There's nothing waiting to print", I said.  I  didn't  share  my
poetic  thoughts  about  queue  space  because  I  didn't  think she'd
understand.  I had a slight glimmer of an idea...  "What kind of  file
was it?" I asked.

     She hesitated.  "Graphics."

     "I need more information than that.   What  kind?   ReGIS?   GKM?
Digitized?"

     "Digitized.  I thin.  I dont no." Her typing was really  breaking
down under pressure.  I ignored it.

     "Then the only printer we've got around  here  that  will  handle
something  like  that  is the PrintServer.  How long ago did you check
it?"

     "Five minutes."

     "Long enough.  Digitized files aren't like  ASCII,  honey.   They
take  up  a lot of space and take a long time to transmit.  Also, they
were probably shuffled off to the PrintServer queue, and then  to  the
PrintServer memory, while you were lookin' around in the wrong place."
I was heading down the hall while I talked.  By the time she  realized
what I was going to do, it would be too late.

     "Wait!" she finally said, scrambling after me.  I was already  at
the  printer,  but  she  dodged  past me and pulled the sheet from the
tray.  I got a glimpse, but a glimpse was enough.

     "Tom Seleck," I breathed.  "Nude.  Where'd you get that?"

     She held it blank  side  out,  defensively.   "Some  experimental
software.  It can alter images."

     "And take clothes off pictures," I sneered.  "You got your print.
Also,  you learned that stuff takes a while to get through the queues,
especially when they're distributed."

     "I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't say  anything  about  this..."
she began.  She was talking to my back.  I was already walking away to
my cubicle.

     Once there, I had a good stiff pull on the vending  machine  Coke
to  get  myself  together.   There's  lots of slime out there; lots of
people ready to turn a fast disk or juggle  some  software.   However,
there's this picture of Samantha Fox I've got...

     This is the LAT.  It's a jungle at  times:   things  with  teeth,
ready to byte...

    The following response was submitted by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous at this time.
    
    						=maggie
    ==================================================================
    
    GAWCK!  I've found out who the perpetrator of the infamous electronic
    Cheryl Tiegs poster is.  URRG, GURGLE, GAWCK, I think it's my
    landlord!!!  He mentioned it to me last weekend...citing it as an
    example of part of a demo he's doing. 

    Now, the man is a prominant DEC employee, been here forever.  In all of
    my dealings with him, he has never displayed anything vaguely like
    sexism. He has treated me decently and fairly.  He has rented me a
    beautiful house very cheaply.  He is a truly nice guy, and a very
    decent human being, who I am certain does not wish to offend anyone.  I
    mentioned to him that there was a great deal of flak generated about
    that poster in the WOMANNOTES file. He said something to the effect of,
    "Really?  The customers really like it."  My dilemma: 

    o I don't wish to jeopardize what has been an ideal relationship with
      my landlord 
    
    o I don't wish to jeopardize his job (or mine, for that matter) 
    
    o On the other hand, many people here have had some very valid and
      vocal objections to that poster. 

    I really feel caught.  What would you do???

    
    The community will pardon me for being pig ignorant, but it seems
    to me that .183 is asking a non-question.                     
    
    What can be done?
    
    I suppose that some sort of crusade could be mounted to get the thing
    removed from every system on the EasyNet and banned from customer
    demos, but that would probably take an order from pretty far on high.
    It isn't without precedent.
    
    I have to say that I don't think it's worth doing anything.  The
    author of .183 seems to have a lot to lose and little to gain. 
    Of course, that's coming from a white Anglo-Saxon male, so maybe
    my opinion isn't worth a whole hell of a lot.
    
    DFW

    re: .183
    Sounds like the best you can do is try to non-judgementally convey
    some of the valid points expressed here to your landlord. If you're
    comfortable doing that. If he doesn't care, it's probably not worth
    any more effort on your part. Even if he does care, there probably
    isn't much he can do about it, since, as .184 pointed out, it's
    taken on a life of its own.
    
    and re: .184
    meow!
    	Mez

    RE: .183
    
    De quel poster parle-t-on ?
    
    Que veut dire "landlord" ?
    
    Zoziau

Well, it seems that there's this 35 year old fashion model, Cheryl
Tiegs, who is the subject of a very tame (by European standards)
bathing suit poster.  About the only thing going for this poster
is the fact that it is highly likely that Mrs. Tiegs isn't wearing
any clothing under the bathing suit.  (Blandine, you have to understand
that American women usually wear long woolen underwear under their
bathing suits so they don't catch cold when they're at the beach.)

It seems that, in order to show off our computer systems, someone
digitized the poster -- reproducing the analog attributes of Mrs.
Tiegs with only the slight distortion that is an unavoidable attribute
of the digitizing process.  (I.e., you can't count her freckles.)

If you've read the first 186 responses to this note, you've undoubtably
discovered that digital image processing (or should I say Digital image
processing?) is a topic of great interest to our loyal readership.
Hope this helps.

Martin.

I'm not sure of the translation of "landlord" -- perhaps "patron"?
(He's the person who owns the building you live in.)

    "...mais je don't verstehe vous..." - anybody else speak Franglemande?
    (Or is it Frenglisherman?)
    
    RE the posters: My husband staunchly supports the view that the
    human body is a very difficult image to digitize, and therefore
    pictures of human bodies are the best way to demonstrate the process.
    Using that argument, why not suggest digitizing some posters of
    mixed-pairs body builders? You get male and female (no sexism),
    and some really good muscle definition to show off the imaging,
    and the royalties probably wouldn't be as high as for Ms. Tiegs...
    
    -b

    Savez-vous quoi ? Ce poster est venu jusqu'a moi ! Je l'ai dans
    mon VAXaccompte.
    
    D'ailleurs, je le trouve tout a fait delicieux...

    Par contre, a l'impression, il sort en negatif. Comment faire ?
    
    
    Je trouve l'idee de s'en servir pour les clients absolument ridicule,
    idiote et offensante. Il me deplairait qu'on se serve de mes reliefs
    pour appater la clientele ! Pourquoi ne pas servir aux visiteurs
    l'image de tous les chefs de service en calecon long, aussi ? (Mais
    que voila une bonne idee !! :-) )

    
    Zoziau

    QUOTE:
    
You know what ?  That poster has gotten all the way to me !  I have it in
my VAX account.

BTW, I think it's wonderful...

But when I print it, it comes out in reverse.  What to do?

I find the idea of using it for clients absolutely ridiculous, idiotic,
and offensive.  I don't like people using my form [ed note, think she means
the female form in general] as client bait !   Why not give the visitors
an image of all the executives in long underwear as well ?  (well, there's
a good idea !! :-) )

    Zoziau

    UNQUOTE.

re .183 (I really feel caught.  What would you do???)

	What is it about objecting to him (in private) that makes you
	feel that you would risk your job?  You have heard what other
    	people think,  but what do *you* think,  and whatever it is,
    	why can't you tell him what you feel about it?

	Simon.

re .184
>    I have to say that I don't think it's worth doing anything.  The
>    author of .183 seems to have a lot to lose and little to gain. 

	I don't see how you can judge that.  For example,
	she might be able to establish more influence over him
	and improve the relationship.  Also she may be able to
    	get it out (at least between the two of them) rather
    	than harbour resentment and go for the passive aggression
    	approach.

re .185
>    some of the valid points expressed here to your landlord.

	I think she should convey her own points not other
	peoples.  The issue isn't whether the poster issue
	is right - arguments against it may well be wrong,
	but that shouldn't deter her - people are allowed
	to be wrong either way.  As I see it the issue
	is whether and how she can criticise him.

Simon.	

    Re .183, don't do anything.  Good landlords are just as difficult
    to find as non-sexist men.  It just makes a good example of how
    unaware some men are to what some women may find sexist and offensive.
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  Martin, Cheryl probably wasn't 35 when she posed for that
    picture - not that it matters.  But, men not only like their poster
    women half-naked, they like'm young, too.
    

    re .192:
    
    > But, men not only like their poster
    > women half-naked, they like'm young, too.
      
    harrumph!
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                                  

Martin.

    re .187
>    (Blandine, you have to understand
>    that American women usually wear long woolen underwear under their
>    bathing suits so they don't catch cold when they're at the beach.)
 
    I don't know if I've missed the point, missed the boat, or am generally
    unaware of what goes on around me, but I have *never* seen a woman
    wearing long woolen underwear under their bathing suits.  Is this
    another quirk of Boston that I should go see for myself?  Should
    I have assumed a smily face after all of that?  I sincerely hope
    that Zoziau doesn't believe that garbage.  Women in the US wear
    swimming suits the same way that European women do.
    
    While I'm ranting, didn't Zoziau specifically request that she be
    called "Zoziau" and *not* "Blandine"?
    
    re last 3
    I'm afraid I have to agree with Lorna!
    
    Spence

Re: .195
    > Women in the US wearswimming suits the same way that European women do.

Perhaps the writer hasn't been in Europe lately?

Martin.

(ps: obligitory :-)

    	The general case here has been more or less sexual equality
    - a pair of briefs.
    
    	But the local newspaper told us a couple of months ago (with
    pictures) about the latest fashion for women. This appears to be
    wired, so that it just clips onto the lower part of the abdomen.
    This means you do not need straps at the side, so the general effect
    when seen sideways on is that the woman is wearing nothing at all.
    
    	For the more modest, or those afraid of sunburn, the newspaper
    described what was supposed to be the latest fashion introduced
    from Brazil - a sort of thin plastic self-adhesive pair of breast
    covers with garish designs on them. I suppose the idea of this is
    to avoid straps too?
    
    	I expect to be in the U.S. in a couple of weeks. Should I expect
    to see this, or the long woolen underwear?

    [Sorry, I know this is an unusually dead horse, but I just started
    reading this file.  A couple of anecdotes might not hurt.]
    
    Re .37 (What would you do if Ken came in and asked you to take it
    down?)  This actually happened in about 1975 on a Mill floor where
    pinups were particularly numerous.  The people took them down.

    Re .48 (What happens if customers hear or see things they might find
    objectionable?)  In about the same year, DECnet was just starting
    to come to life, and Digital was trying to get a couple of big
    accounts.  The product manager made a joke about 'logging in to a
    remote hostess'.  The woman who was in charge of the procurement
    got up, took her retinue out of the room, and the business was lost.
    [I usually tell this story to get people to be extra sensitive about
    what they write in program comments, since we don't know who may
    read them.]

    [Justine's 77.1xx on BU GIRLS Calendar reminded me to type this in.]
    
    From Boston Woman, 1/88, p 10 -- reprinted w/o permission
    
    Quote:
    
    NAKED LADIES?
    
    Not quite, but the sultry models gracing the newly marketed Swimsuit
    Diskettes leave little to the imagination.  Guided somewhat by the
    success of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, RSI/Compu-pak,
    Inc. has developed what they claim is a sure-fire marketing strategy.
     Is it sexist?  According to Richard Petritis, Vice President of
    Operations, "We wanted to introduce a product that would create
    some excitement and be different from the typical and sometimes
    boring software products currently available."  Each Swimsuit Diskette
    is packaged in a protective envelope decorated with just enough
    skin to set this diskette apart from product produced by big names
    such as IBM, 3M, and Maxell.  So what's in it for women computer
    users?  Yep.  A whole slew of bathingsuit-clad boys soon to come.
    Keep an eye out for the 24" by 36" calendar which complements each
    package of 10.  Comments?  Call: 1-800-634-8650.
    
    Endquote.

    If they wanted "distinct" I wish they had stuck to something like
    The Water Lillies, Mona Lisa, or some such.  I'll be damned before
    I buy a diskette -- or any computer accessory -- with a
    bathingsuit-clad man or woman on the jacket.
    
    Grumble.
    
    Lee