Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    My response is "Lighten Up!!!" 
    
    Speaking as a female, I don't find the issue offensive. Face it!
    The women are beautiful and shapely etc. etc. etc.
    If the guys want to look at SI - --- so what!! 
    I'm not model material -- yet SI doesn't make me feel "exploited",
    nor jealous, angry, etc.
    
    Would you turn down the opportunity to review the "Firemen's Calendar"
    for example - which shows (on a monthly basis) very handsome men,
    with bear chests (at the very worst)??? Be honest, most women would
    review that calendar with joy.
    
    So, SI Swimsuit Issue is out once again -- Big Deal! Most men with
    any values don't allow the SI issue to make/break their relationships.
    For the few who do -- who needs them anyway??
    
    
            
    
    

>    Would you turn down the opportunity to review the "Firemen's Calendar"
Well I don't buy it, but I don't think I'm a statistically significant sample
(but since you asked...).

What strikes me about .0 is several things:

1) It's pointing out the obvious (to me). Too bad we need to keep pointing out
the obvious.

2) It's doing so in a fairly confrontative way (perhaps that's not quite the
right word, but I'll assume you get my drift til you call me on it). From a
woman. To men. Tres taboo. I bet guys are pissed. Particularly college guys.

3) The bit about appreciating women on campus reminds me of my time at MIT. A
certain subsection of the male population (sometimes referred to as 'frat
boys', but never by me), seemed to have the same attitude. But there were
plenty of other wonderful men there. Mentioning that attitude also makes the
article sound a bit like sour grapes. Maybe it was just meant to bring the
analogy home, but I don't think it works.

4) Good for her.
	Mez

    I have a lot of personal difficulty with the issues of men's
    magazines that cater to their pruient interests by showing
    nudity or near-nudity.
    
    And part of that problem is this:  I realize that the publicity
    and the money make it difficult for a woman to turn down the
    offer of being in one of these magazines.  And too many times,
    those women who pose for these pictures have little else to
    offer but their attractive bodies--they lack a depth of talent
    or a commitment to do the hard work of learning a craft, and take
    the easy way.
    
    I think that most men do, in the bottom of their dingy little hearts,
    know that most of these lovely ladies would not give them the time
    of day, but *he can dream*.    Unfortunately, some get wrapped into
    their fantasy and believe that they *deserve* someone that looks
    like that, and assesses women from that standpoint.   Any woman
    found wanting in the eyes of that kind of man should consider herself
    lucky---she does not need to tie herself to an immature twit who
    finds most of his intellect further done the anatomy than directly
    under the hair on his head.
    
    My ideal world of women would be this:
    
    *No* woman would allow herself to don a swimsuit or plastic wrap
    and pose for pictures in *any* magazine.
    
    Women would stop worrying about what men want in relation to their
    body shape/size, and develop their independence and intellectual
    life.    This in turn, might *force* men to come to terms with their
    own attitudes and they would need to change just to meet these
    new women's standards. 
    
    Marilyn

    
    

 In this forum, my guess is that the article will find a generally receptive
audience. It is written by a woman who is clearly unhappy that other women
choose modeling as their career, and that men like to look at women's bodies
from a purely carnal perspective. She obviously feels that men are a lower
form of life- unable to appreciate anything but the aesthetic aspects of
women. By such a derogatory outlook, she is able to feel better about herself
by bringing down those around her.

 The article itself is replete with derogatory innuendos and stereotypes
about how despicable men are. There is nothing negative said about the women
whose pictures are in the magazine- after all, it's their freewill, right?
Instead, the article chooses to focus on the stereotypical bad aspects of
men. The author finds herself emotional on this subject, and appears to
make little effort to rise above her emotionalism and take a more analytical
perspective.

 It appears that the author values women's intellectual abilities more than
their physical abilities/attributes. I wonder what she expects the women who
have very little intellectual ability but a gorgeous body to do? Eschew the
God(dess) given physical beauty for an intellectual career that she may neither
like nor be suited for? 

 Personally, I find the comparison between SI and Penthouse to be humorous
in its charicature.

 I do (believe it or not) understand the motivation behind such an article.
There are some startling inequalities between men and women that exist even
now. However, such a sweeping indictment of the male gender is neither deserved
nor effective. If she is trying to effect change in male attitudes, she has
failed outright. If she is simply trying to get alot of back patting by other
females who feel disenchanted with what they perceive as their station in
life, I am certain she has done much better. Such acrimony does not serve to
bring men and women closer together. Instead, it tends to tear them apart. I
guess it's premature of me to assume she simply wants to bring more equality
between men and women based on her article.

 There do remain a number of interesting points raised by her article. I am
sure that if this subject is given the attention it deserves, a rather long
string of replies will ensue.

 The author's inflammatory style will win her few quarters with men, whether
sympathetic or unsympathetic to the cause of equality. Personally, I can't
see what the big deal is. I agree with the previous noter whose message was
"Lighten up." 

 I am amused by  the idea that some women feel that in an ideal situation,
no woman would allow herself to be photographed and put in _any_ magazine. 
This policy would seem to discriminate against the happiness of any woman
who LIKED to pose for the camera. There are women like that, you know. It
seems to me that to deny them their happiness to appease your sense of justice
would be rather unfair. It's really no different than someone saying "in my view
of a perfect world, no woman would allow herself to be caught thinking. That
would be tantamount to being ensalved by men to solve their problems and do
their work." Think about it.

 The Doctah

  While I understand and appreciate what Sara is trying to do here, it is
almost a sure bet that it missed the mark.  Missed it in that she probably
did not provoke people to think twice about this type of visual presentation.

  I couldn't help but wonder if the author was having a bad day when she
wrote the article.  It sounded very similar to what you would expect someone
who had a chip on their shoulder to write.  If ND is as sports-minded a school
as I've heard, then putting down football players and basketball players is
hardly a way to garner support for your position.

  Maybe I missed something here, but it also sounds a lot like she put down
the physical attributes of *all* of the women at Notre Dame (re: section
about how the most beautiful women being "homely" compared to those in the
SI issue), whereas she has a different view of the males of Notre Dame.  Seemed
like too much generalizing and stereotyping to be very effective...

Jim

    In isolation, the swimsuit issue is not such a big deal or even
    a bad thing.  Very few people, I think, fail to derive some pleasure
    from viewing a shapely form of any gender; this pleasure need not
    have any sexual overtones.  If it does, well, fantasies are an accepted
    and even valued part of the average sex life.
    
    However, the publication of the swimsuit issue is not an event which
    takes place in isolation.  It takes place in the context of thousands
    of years of history, thousands of years of relegating women to a
    less-than-equal status.  It has inherited a lot of emotional and
    cultural baggage.  While it's not entirely fair to blame the swimsuit
    issue for what has gone before, I'm sure someone has a sign outside
    their office that reads, "If you're not part of the solution, you're
    part of the problem."
    
    Re: .5
    
    The tone is more low-key than many I've seen; more of a chiding
    than a diatribe.  However, if her goal is to change attitudes, she
    should probably re-think her technique.  I suspect one of the first
    rules of persuasive speaking is "Do not alienate your audience."

    I pretty much agree with the way Chelsea, in .8, has summed up the
    situation.
    
    In addition, I agree with a lot of what .4 has to say, but I do
    resent the comment, in speaking of women who pose naked or near
    naked, that "they lack a depth of talent or a commitment to do the
    hard work of learning a craft and take the easy way."  No amount
    of "commitment to....hard work" would get some people a job in industry
    that pays well.  Doors are only recently beginning to open to women,
    and opportunity has been very limited.  To place the blame on women
    for taking the easy way out seems unfair.  Everyone is not born
    with the ability to earn an engineering degree.  It seems to me
    that a beautiful woman (with average intelligence) who agrees to pose 
    scantily glad or nude, for a lot of money, is simply making the
    most she can out of living in a capitalist society, which may not
    want to pay her a living wage for being a secretary, a school
    teacher, or a social worker, but, if she's beautiful, is willing
    to pay plenty for her nude photo.  
    
    At the same time, it has bothered me a lot in my life, that so many
    men seem to put physical beauty, of the type seen in Sports Illustrated
    bathing suit models, at the top of their lists of what they're looking
    for in an SO.  I could never compete with those beauties and it
    bothers me to this day that women's looks should count so much to
    men.
    
    I, myself, *love* looking at good looking men.  I recently went
    to a Duran Duran concert for the sole reason of feasting my eyes
    on Simon LeBon for 2 hours.  The man is gorgeous!  But, in real
    life I don't expect the men I meet to look that good.  (Good thing
    I don't, too :-) cause there sure aren't many around!)  In real
    life I'm most concerned with personalities, but I'm not always assured
    that that's the case with a lot of men.
    
    Lorna
    
    for a lot of money    

    I am an avid photographer and oil painter. I thing Sports Illustrated
    photos are very tastefully done. The woman are beautiful and although
    I wouldn't buy a magazine, I would look at my husbands.
    
    Kate
    

    
    I just want to say I agree with .8. I think the swimsuit issure
    is not the best thing in the world for developing healthy attitudes
    about women, but at least it doesn't portray women in violent or
    seriously degrading situations. In other words, I don't like it,
    but I can thnk of worse things to get upset over.
    
    As for the idea that these women should learn a craft and get a
    job, that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Life
    isn't that simple. Unless you are in their shoes
    and can say you have turned down all those bucks to spend years
    studying something you didn't love just to be marketable, you can't 
    judge them.
    
    Roberta

>    At the same time, it has bothered me a lot in my life, that so many
>    men seem to put physical beauty, of the type seen in Sports Illustrated
>    bathing suit models, at the top of their lists of what they're looking
>    for in an SO.  I could never compete with those beauties and it
>    bothers me to this day that women's looks should count so much to
>    men.
 
 Speaking from the other side of the fence, it has always bothered me that
women seem to place so much emphasis on physical appearance when deciding
whether one should date another or not. If you ask 100 women, "What is important
to you when deciding on someone to date?" Very few of them would state that
appearance was an overriding factor. But if you were to hang out with these same
women, you'd find it was much more important to them than they'd have you
believe. Perhaps it is because they don't want others to think they are 
absorbed in something like that. I don't know. The fact remains that while
nobody wants to admit it, people of both sexes pay alot of attention to 
looks.

 "Wow- Check her out. What a babe!" "Oh, he's gooooooorgeous. Shhhh! He's
looking at us. Oh Gawd!" I've heard both.

 It does seem to make sense to put physical beauty in perspective when
thinking about one's (possible) mate. It is not always that easy to put
into practice.

 How many women feel jealous when a particularly attractive female enters the
room flaunting her looks? How many actually get catty about her? But if a
gorgeous guy were to enter the room, how many of you women would think "I
hope he comes over and starts talking to ME?" It's a two way street.

The Doctah

 Re: what people do for work

 Most of us in this conference have gone to school to learn a useful skill.
In my case, my engineering skill is the reason why I get to drive what I
drive, live where I live, and eat what I eat. If the measure of success in
business is money, what does it say when most if not all of the models earn
more money on a yearly basis than 99% of the employees of this company?

 The Doctah

There are two reasons why the SI swimsuit issue greatly disturbs me.  First
although I would not have quite expressed my feelings in the same way as 
the author did (getting people extremely upset is not a good way to make a
necessary and serious point), I agree with the idea the the issue portrays
woman as objects, not as people.  This is not an issue done by a modeling 
magazine, or some publication of that sort, it is put out by a sports 
magazine.  Exactly what is the sport involved with women dressed in next
to nothing?  If this is an issue about swimwear- then why isn't there 
coverage of skinny women, fat women, older women, and young kids?  All that
seems to appear here are dozens of pictures of gorgeous slim women.  Where
does this come in under the theme of sports????

As for the attitude of "lighten up".  This somehow makes me cringe.  Where 
in this attitude is there a line drawn for what you should lighten up on
and what you should take offense to?  "Lighten up for God's sakes- it's
only a sports magazine, that is for one week a year dedicating more then
the back page (with the little pictures on it about high school athletes
of the month) to women in sports.  This is what women athletes do isn't it?

This leads me to my second point.  I guess this issue bothers me because 
the magazine in its entirety bothers me.  You can go through page after
page of this wonderfully illustrated magazine and find stories from college
football, to professional boxing, but where is the coverage of women's
sports?  Oh yeah- let's not forget the whole issue dedicated to swimsuits!
This magazine should not be called Sports Illustrated, but rather Men's 
Sports Illustrated.  Granted- this is going off the main subject, but 
this again, is just another reason why the swimsuit issue bothers me so
much.

Signed,

A sports fan
an athlete
and a woman

Terri

    Re .14, "Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world where
    desperation and insecurity were considered attractive?"   :-)
    
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

 re .17

 It would make life alot easier for alot of people at first. But once people
started being found attractive (because of their insecurity), they'd stop
feeling insecure. Paradoxical, eh?

 re .16

 Terri-

 If Sports Illustrated bothers you so much- Don't buy it. Don't read it, either.
One thing you seem to forget- SI is a magazine which is used as much as a 
vehicle for profit as it is for reading, probably more so. Given the demo-
graphics of it's readership, they feel that having a swimsuit issue is in their
financial best interest. That they might lose some readers is of course an
issue, but the bottom line tells the story- and it says "keep it."

 Does Playgirl bother you as much? Does Cosmo? Does it bother you more that
it's women that are being looked at for their beauty, or is it that people
in general being viewed only in one dimension bothers you? 

 I used to get SI. I found it not to be worth the money. Obviously, others
disagree. I can live with that.

The  Doctah

    Whereas I can agree with a lot the points made in this note, in
    my deepest, darkest, innermost being, I am honest enough to admit
    that I would *LOVE* to look even half as good as those models, sex
    objects or not.  I am old enough to have been raised when PLAYBOY
    set the deplorable, nearly unattainable standards of the day, and
    never in a million years could I ever have even been close to the
    air brushed quality of those "sex objects," but I damn well wish I
    could for even a little while.  Yeah, it may sound backward or like
    a traitor to the cause, but it's also true.       
           
    Maybe this should go under "True Confessions"...
    
    Barb
    

    I think SI is stretching the bounds of what's sports in producing
    the switsuit issue.  Most of the swimsuits depicted don't stand
    up well in sport-related situations such as heavy surf and platform
    dives.
    
    I find it no more exploitive than quite a few of the mail order
    catalogues that infest my mailbox -- which isn't really saying much.
    
    Perhaps if the illustrious publishers would include other fashion
    forecast issues for women in sports in a publication produced primarily
    for a male audience [note I _didn't_ say woemn don't read SI] the
    sudden content shift from vicarious participation to merely watching
    wouldn't be so glaring.  Most of the arm-chair quarterbacks _I_
    have met don't spend time envisioning themselves in french-cut
    neoprene splendour [at least, they're not owning up to it ;^) ]
    
    No, looking at and admiring what one sees in the SI-SI isn't _much_
    different from looking at and admiring what one sees on the beach
    -- although the live-action sequences at the beach would provide
    for more viewing pleasure.
    
    To sum up, my distaste for SI-SI is centered upon the shift in
    fantasies, if you will.  The context is all wrong.
    
       Ann    

Yes - SI is a publication who's purpose is business, ergo profit. But keep
in mind that like all commercial publishing (newspapers and magazines, with
the exception of MAD and very few others), the aim is not so much to sell
the rags - that's not where the real profits are. But by being ABLE to sell
so many, they can demand HUGE sums from their advertisers, off of whom they
REALLY make their profits. I'll be willing to bet that the cost of most ads
in the swimsuit issue of SI are double what they would be in any normal issue
throughout the year. So where do you start? Discourage purchase of the mag
in order to decrease their circulation so that advertisers won't be willing
to pay so much for space so that SI's profits drop? Or boycott the advertisers
so that they won't be willing/able to pay so much so SI can't charge so much?

-Jack

Make sure that the men in my life understand where I'm coming from. 
(and, of course the women too...)
	Mez

       I'm going to through something else in here. This last weekend
    I was at CVS picking up drugs for my wife (FLU bug). I went over
    to the magazine rack to read a little while I wait. I saw the SI
    swimwear and gazed at it, the whole magazine. I'm not going to buy
    it so I put it back. Then I counted 6 other "Swimwear" magazine
    on the rack. It seems everyone was putting them out, and some one
    was buying them.
    
       In America, it something sells and has a good market then other
    will and do copy it. I'm not saying if this is right or wrong, I
    really don't see a lot wrong with this. If you going and look on
    the rack you'll see a lot of mags aimed at women who have swimwear
    editions out now. It seems everyone is doing it nowadays.
    
      Now my personal opinion, I'm not going to but any of these. If
    I want sports then I'll but a sports edition. If I want to see women
    dressed scantily then I'll buy one of those. If my wife wants to buy
    any of those then she does. 
    
      
                     REK

re: .4:
     And too many times,
    those women who pose for these pictures have little else to
    offer but their attractive bodies--they lack a depth of talent
    or a commitment to do the hard work of learning a craft, and take
    the easy way.

Judging from my own experience of having dated, at one time or another,
a Playboy Playmate, a couple of ex-Bunnies, and an ex-movie actress, I can
state with some confidence that at least four of these women have every
bit as much talent and commitment to "real work" (one's a PhD, two are
professional therapists, one's a senior software engineer) as anyone
you know.  They are also no-nonsense feminists, for that matter.

And, for that matter, who are you to tell a woman what profession she
should choose?

Martin.

re .18

Doctah-

Sports Illustrated does bother me, and in fact I neither buy it nor read 
it.  I did, at one time have a subscription to SI (at that time I thought
all "real" athletes got SI).  I haven't forgotten that SI is a magazine
which is a vehicle for profit.  Nothing in the capitalistic society we live
in is NOT a vehicle for profit.  I guess I think that that stinks- but
in going with the "bottom line" I guess that means tough luck eh?

As for the attitude of don't read it- Well I won't.  But if I were just
looking out for myself, and wasn't worrying about what the rest of society
was thinking and reading, then we'd all be in a pretty tough situation
wouldn't we.  An analogy can be made to bigger and much more severe topics
-"if you don't like drugs don't do them", "if you don't like porography
change the channel", and "if you don't like fighting with your parents
move out".  Taking this kind of attitude will be fine for me, but won't
work to solve any problems.  Now don't get me wrong- these examples are
much more severe and all contain ratholes within themselves, I am merely
speaking about the attitude that was suggested I take.

Back to responding though- yes as a matter of fact playgirl bothers me, 
and so does cosmo- for various different reasons.  You made a good point 
when you asked if it was that people in general were being viewed only 
in one dimension that may bother me.  For me to stand here and say that
it bothers me that women were being viewed would be missing the mark.  This
kind of stuff is done for all people- men, women, and yes even children.
I guess it bothers me most that society takes stuff like this as examples
of sports, and that magazines like SI feed into the view that buying the
swimsuit issue and gawking at the pictures of people (not the bathing suits
themselves or the sports that are involved) is enjoyable..."so Lighten up!"

Just my thoughts,

Terri
                                                                            
 

    RE: .0
    I thought the article was well done and cleverly written EXCEPT:
    
    The last two paragraphs change the tone completely and sound like
    women whining because they can't get dates!  They really detract
    from the punch of the rest of the article and probably would help
    cause it to be "written off."
    
    I don't agree with the basic premise that the issue (or soft-core,
    non-violent porn, for that matter) is harmful, but I was not offended
    by the article and found it enjoyable except for the last two
    paragraphs. (Those paragraphs could be the basis for some *other*
    article!)

    I agree that it is possible to have both looks and talent.
    I don't think it's right to put down the women who choose to
    pose.  They look great and usually are not pictured in a degrading
    way.  I think the SI Swimsuit issue sells so many copies because
    alot of women are buying it to see the latest beach fashions.
    
    I also agree that the SI swimsuit issue should cover more than just
    beachwear bikinis.  How about also showing Mens bikinis and swimwear.
    How about also showing Men and Womens surfing, swimming, boating,
    waterskiing, windsurfing, diving,  etc.  athletic swimwear.?
    
    
    The only time I get offended by any of the pictures in the SI issue
    is when a coworker tapes the centerfold to the wall of his cube
    and I have to pass by his desk.  Then I feel its inappropriate placement. 
    
    Bev

That's funny Eagle; I never noticed having problems with getting male attention
:-) :-) :-).
	Mez

    Re .29
    
    (Here I go, putting my foot right in it!)
    
    Why should a picture, ANY picture, in someone ELSE's work area,
    offend you?  I can not tolerate Madonna or Brooke Shields, but I
    am not going to fuss about it if someone has either of them in their
    cube.  And, as a tag, I sometimes have to sit in an office with
    pictures that I don't particularly care for (comix with an offensive
    joke, etc.) but it is not MY area to complain about.  Nudes are
    another thing altogether.  (At home is one thing, but not exactly
    appropriate for the office area.  Garages is a different matter.)
    But women in swimsuits aren't exactly bad.  As a woman I enjoy beauty
    in general, and sometimes I will buy swimsuit mag's and look at
    the photos (horrors) WITH MY HUSBAND! (He usually will point out
    a particularly pretty model and tell me how that particular suit
    would look much better on me, but that is neither here nor there.)
    
    In conclusion, I cast another vote for "Lighten up".
    
    K.C.
    
    Unicorns generally enjoy natural beauty in ALL of its forms.

    re: .32
    
    The thinking behind the no-pinups guideline is that most all
    work areas are more or less public places - employees can walk in
    and out freely.  The depiction of scantily clad people is felt
    by enough people in policy-making positions to be inappropriate
    to the workplace.  The photographic object is depicted principally
    as a sex object and DEC chooses not to encourage the kind of
    prejudice that occurs when some people associate the notion of
    sex-object-only with all those of the model's gender.
    
    Steve
    

    
    	Just some random comments.
    
    	First, thank you for all of the responses.  I'll tell Sara about
    them and maybe she'll take some of the advice when she writes her
    next Inside column.  I think that many of the comments were good.
    Those of you who said that Sara wouldn't change very many minds
    with the tone are probably correct.  Then again, it's ND and getting
    things to change there is rather hard based on the nature of the
    school.  I talked to another friend at ND and mentioned the article.
    She told me that she had read it at lunch and thought that it was
    a well-written article.  She liked it and didn't give it another
    thought until her sailing club meeting that night.  The guys were
    all upset and they all thought that Sara was some kind of men-hating
    b*tch.  I'd probably be offended by their remarks except for the
    simple fact that I am Sara's best female friend.  All of her other
    best friends are guys.  As a matter of fact, the group that Sara
    hangs out with at school consists of her and 5 guys and that's the
    group that she road trips to football games with and socialises
    with during her "free" time.  As for Sara being unhappy.....well,
    Sara was in Austria studying last year and sometimes wishes that
    she was back.  However, the football team won the national championship
    and Sara was at every game except for USC.  She's an assistant editor
    on the school paper and her social life would kill me.
    
    	I suppose the next question then is, why did she write the article?
    She felt that it was something that needed to be said.  I'm not
    sure that she gave any conscious thought to trying to change people's
    minds, rather, I think that she really feels that the swimsuit issue
    is an affront to women and so she said so.  As for the last 2
    paragraphs, well, she was writing to an ND audience that desperately
    needs SOMETHING to improve male/female relationships.  It probably
    didn't do much good in light of the rest of the article but at least
    she tried.
    
    	I like the article.  Part of the reason that I enjoyed it is
    because she's one of my closest friends and part of it is because
    I know the community in which she was writing.  Looking at it from
    outsiders' view, it might have been slightly combative (more heat
    than light)  From a personal standpoint, I suppose I don't like
    the swimsuit issue because there's nothing comparable in the other
    direction.  For instance, there's Playgirl that can be compared
    to Playboy and one can argue that women's fashion magazines can
    be compared to men's sports magazines....but men don't commonly
    read women's fashion magazines while I know many who suscribe to
    SI.  Even if men did suscribe to Cosmo, Cosmo doesn't have one issue
    devoted entirely to "checking out the latest beach fashion".  I
    suppose what I really want is for SI to run a Swimsuit issue where
    the models are male.  They could send it to all of their female
    subscribers instead of the other issue which I'm not really interested
    in.  I don't think that it's the magazine itself that bothers me
    as much as it is the inequality.
    
    	Why does it "enhance" the bottom line to show pictures of
    practically unattainable female physiques and it doesn't do the
    same for male physiques?
    
    GO IRISH!
    
    Rachel 

    
    I've been giving this some thought over the past day or so, and this
    is where my brain stopped (momentarily  8^):  I'm not personally
    offended by the SI swimsuit issue, I can understand why some people
    are, and I think that the swimsuit issue is just a very small
    manifestation of a very large problem.  As I see it, the problem is
    the negative pressure placed on all of us (male and female) 
    *by* all of us (male and female) to conform to "current physical 
    guidelines."  There's a danger in putting more energy into battling
    the individual occurences of the problem rather than finding ways to
    educate our children (and reeducate ourselves) to accept the bodies
    we live in.
    
    I think I look at the whole issue in this light because of discussions
    I've had with friends who had to fight a negative self image.  For the most
    part, they picked up the "clues" on acceptable appearance early on,
    from friends and family - the visual media reinforced these later on.
    It's easy to target SI.  It's harder to see and deal with the problem
    at the level of our friends and family - but probably a lot more
    effective in the long run.
    
    Ron

re: .30:
>    ~--e--~  Eagles_Still_Watch_Sexy_Women_Walk_By_+_Have_Fantasies...

Isn't it wonderful that sexy women can walk and have fantasies at the
same time.  It makes me feel good about our educational system.

Martin.

The SI cover model and SI issue editor visted Good Morning America a morning or
so ago. 

The editor for the Swimsuit issue is a woman.  She conceived the idea 25 years
ago when SI needed a filler between Football and Baseball seasons.  At first the
others thought she was nuts, but the idea caught on. 

When asked what she looked for in a model, the editor replied intelligence, and
personality. 

She also stated that the reason for the popularity of the issue was because the
models looked like "girls next door." 

    
    re: .36
    
    :^) :^) :^)
    
    
    Roberta
    

    Re: .37
    
    >She also stated that the reason for the popularity of the issue
    >was because the models looked like "girls next door."
    
    I recall reading/hearing that Playboy was meant to feature the ordinary
    girl-next-door beauties, as opposed to the glamorous movie stars.
    Maybe they actually lived up to that claim before the advent of
    air-brushing, but I'm not so sure it's true now.  Apparently a lot
    of the women proceed to careers in acting and modelling, so the
    distinction gets blurred.
    
    When someone in the fashion business says "girl next door," I think
    they're looking for a particular style rather than a particular
    standard of beauty.  Cheryl Tiegs is "girl next door" -- not exotic,
    not sultry, not vampish, etc.  Brooke Shields is not "girl next
    door."  Both are difficult to compete with in the looks department.

    Re .40, Eagle; Christie, and Cheryl, and Paulina, etc., are definitely
    sexy, but are you sure *their* incomes wouldn't *intimidate* you?
     I'm sure their incomes are somewhat in excess of a software engineers
    at DEC? :-)  Also, what makes you think that a woman can't have
    a successful career and still be a "loving wife" (as long as she
    has a loving husband, to make it worthwhile to be a loving wife)?

    Anyway, last night as I was standing in line at the grocery store
    I glanced at the magazine rack and there it was!  The infamous SI
    Swimsuit Issue!  So, overcome with curiosity, I grabbed one up and
    began to thumb through it.  Artistically speaking, the photographs
    are very nicely done.  The poses are quite classy and not at all
    sleazy and offensive such as Hustler, Penthouse, and Playboy.  The
    models are definitely about the most gorgeous group of women that
    could be found in the world today.  (My favorite is Paulina.  I
    *love* her facial features. Beautiful.  Although, that darn Christie
    Brinkly does have about the most perfect female body I've ever seen I do
    get sick of her all American smile :-)!)
    
    I found it interesting to see what the current standard for female
    beauty is this year, and the styles of the newest swimwear.  I wanted
    to read the articles about the models but it was my turn in line
    and I didn't have enough money on me to buy the magazine and the
    cat food, too!
    
    I don't think there's anything wrong with admiring beauty, in any
    form.  I love looking at beautiful things.  The problem is that
    our society has put too much importance on women being beautiful,
    and this magazine is just another reminder to women that if we want
    a man to love us the first thing we have to do is try to look good.
     If as much importance were placed on personality, brains, sense
    of humor, and kindness, it wouldn't be as offensive.
    
    I'd like to see a male swimsuit issue *just as artistically done*
    featuring people like George Michael, Jon Bon Jovi, Simon LeBon,
    Tom Cruise, Rob Lowe, Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, Patrick Swayze,
    Arnold S., Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Springsteen, and ...well, I
    could go on and on....:-)
    
    Lorna
    

But it wouldn't Lorna. It would feature male models, some famous (are there any
famous male models?) and some soon to be. 
	Mez

    
    this is a funny topic...
    
    i don't see what the big fuss is....i mean i've seen woman's
    magazines (cosmo, glamour et al, which by the way far exceed
    news magazines (newsweek, bussinessweek, etc.) in distribution,
    so it seems most women will choose beauty magazines over news)
    anyway, the pictures i've seen in women's magazines seem much
    more provacative (sp) than the SI swimsuit issue.  i don't think
    i've look through one of those magazines without seeing a naked
    woman, not to mention all the advertisements which seem to convey
    the thought that all women are only looking for ways to attract
    prince charming.  i suppose this is allright because it is 
    women who are supposedly looking at these and not men.
    (i can remember one woman's magazine that had a swimsuit issue,
    there where several pages devoted to just bottoms that could
    be bought seperately, of course the women were only wearing the
    bottoms)
    
    i like the note that said her ideal world would exclude women
    from posing for photos.  i suppose her next suggestion is that
    women all wear baggy potatoe sacks to hide their figures and
    veils to hide their faces.
    
    

    Re .42, no, I *can't* think of the names of any famous male models.
     There was the Solo-flex guy (pant-pant) and there's one male model
    with gorgeous facial features who has long, long hair, who I've
    noticed more than once in ads.  The fact that there are no famous
    male models says something in itself, doesn't it?  I have been forced
    to choose my sex objects from men who have talent!  It's not fair.
     I want my male sex objects!  Men who can do nothing but look good
    and pose in sexy clothes!  Why don't any of them get famous or develop
    cult followings, like female models?  It can't be because society
    treats men and women differently, can it?
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .41 (intimidating incomes)
    
    Dunno about Eagle, but I find the notion of their incomes quite
    the opposite of intimidating. . .something just short of fantasy.
    The thought that "her" income could support me (and, particularly
    my addiction to musical equipment) is almost more than I can stand.
    
    Steve

    I hate most women's magazines because they have articles on how
    to be more "masculine" (as in attitudes, etc.), but you have to
    go through 20 pages (and I counted once!) of ads on make-up and
    uplifting bras just to get to the table of contents!
    
    K.C._who_sees_nothing_sleazy_about_Playboy_and_even_got_my_hub_a_
    subscription.                                     

I think we did the 'prove' rathole somewhere else. Anyone want to provide a
pointer and save this topic?
	Mez

I'm pretty sure we did the SI Swimsuit issue exactly one year ago (or was
it two).

Its kind of like re-reading the Lord of the Rings for the tenth time:
you know how the story is going to come out, but it's still fun just the same.

Martin.

    The only thing that bothers me about the SI S.I. is the ads that
    it engenders. Throughout the entire year, when catching a SI ad
    on tv, they *always* point out that your subscription will include
    the S.I., usually with an accompanying drooling leer on the part
    of the men in the ad. BFD.
    
    re: "male swimsuit issues"
    
    There is a magazine that kinda sorta somewhat did this. There's
    a magazine about the comic book industry called AMAZING HEROES.
    Two years ago, just as a joke, they announced a special "swimsuit"
    issue, to be filled with drawings by various comics artists of
    characters in swimsuits. A few of the more vocal and "politically
    correct" fans were in an uproar about the sexism of it until they
    found out that there were as many, if not more, drawings of *male*
    comic book characters than female (of course, the fact that there
    up far more male characters than female in the comics accounts for
    a good part of this, but...). There was a second "annual swimsuit
    issue", but I don't know if there'll be a third.
    
    --- jerry

    
    
    I equate the Swim Suit issue with International Male. They both
    feature almost to perfect models, one being women the other Males.
    
    I enjoy looking at both, yes it's true. I admire someone who takes
    the time and effort and has the ability to put their bodies in shape.
    
    Some of could never look like them if we exercised for a million
    years, that's not the point.
    
    I will admit I perfer the S.I. but that's my preference, but it
    isn't a obsession or whatever I enjoy it for what it is period.
    
    Cal.
    

    Re .54, and time and effort to get your body perfect, I read the
    little article on Paulina P....whatshername in SI.  She says she
    eats junkfood, smokes and never exercises, and yet she has a near
    perfect body (plus face, of course), so sometimes I guess it's just
    luck that propels a person to superstardom.  Oh, well.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .56, but, Eagle, if feminists win, how can real women lose? 
    Isn't that a contradiction in terms? :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .56:
    
    _I_ know what you mean, Eagle.
    
    K.C.

    
    I SURE DON'T!
    
    
    Roberta

    I've only read 17 replies so this may be a repeat of someone else's
    reply, but I don't have time to paw through the next 45 to see if
    I repeating.
    
    My wife purchased a copy of the SI Swimsuit edition for me, knowing
    how much I enjoy "looking" at the issue and knowing that she has
    absolutely nothing to fear or be jealous of on any page of the
    magazine. She also knows that she is cannot wear but possibly one
    or two of the suits in the edition but is confident in the fact
    that I don't care.
    
    The point I bring out is that the articles telling about the
    development of the issue is terrific. It explains about the pioneers
    of the women's freedom movement and how they made their marks in
    history. Articles about the cover models over the past twenty five
    years tell of the glory that they've been launch to by being in
    the SI Swimsuit and on the cover. I take extreme issue with the
    narrow sightedness that would lump these women into a "babe" class
    without so much as a thought. The authoress never mentioned that
    Cheryl Teigs has become a multimillioneress, marketeer, and
    businesswoman who posed again after all of her success at age 41.
    She states that forty is no reason to give up and that hard work
    is the basis for maintaining herself. Carol Alt (married to a NY
    Ranger hockey player),Elle MacPherson(married to a French Painter),
    Christy Brinkley(mother and married to Billy Joel)all show that
    they're more than a piece of fluff.
    
    I think they exploit men.....
    
    Ken

 
It seems to me that the issue (no pun intended!) here is the *imbalance* in
the media, and the harm that results. SI is just another example of the way
we're all constantly bombarded with images of women as sex objects, with
cpmparatively very few such images of men. 

Think about it: you go into a drugstore. There on the rack is the current
issue of SI. But you're a woman, so you look around for its counterpart
showing men in alluringly scanty attire; it doesn't exist. Of course, you
say. Right. We're *supposed* to regard women as sex objects, but not men.
So what else is new? 

But my feeling is that this imbalance, all-pervasive as it is in our
society, can only have the most profound effect on men's attitudes toward
women, and on women's attitudes toward themselves. How could it be
otherwise? In my view, these images don't just reflect a macho mentality,
they create it, perpetuate it, shaping our perceptions. 

*Why* the imbalance? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that men control the 
media, and men feel vulnerable when they see attractive male bodies exposed
in public. I think images of ideal male physiques threaten real males; they fear
they might not compare favorably. Since men are in control, the fact that
women also feel vulnerable in the same way is easily dismissed. Sorry, can't
afford to be sensitive about this - too much profit to be made! 

I've noticed that men often rationalize the imbalance by explaining that
women are "less visually oriented" than men - i.e., less responsive to
visual stimuli, so even if a SI counterpart were available, there wouldn't
be much of a market for it. A convenient fiction if ever there was one!
I bet women would love it; profits would double. Apparently, however,
male sexual supremacy is the one thing the rulers of the media value more
than money. 

I have been following this discussion for a while and decided to add
my two cents.  I'd like to bring this into the realm of the personal.

What is the effect of looking at pictures of what our culture says is
beautuful women/men?   For me, a few things happen.  First, there is
lust and desire for something I can't have which causes me suffering
since I want something and I can't have it.  Second, the lust aspect
causes me to see the person in the picture as a possible object of my
own desires.  This puts an idea/desire in my head of that person.
What that means in that even before I meet that person (if I ever
did), there would be preconcieved ideas, desires, etc about that
person.

What I have found in my own experience is that this interferes with my
seeing that person as they really are.  Note that this does really
happen in real life.  If I am lusting, desiring and fantasing
it (for me) becomes a barrior into really getting to know that person.
That barrier can be overcome but it does take work and some of the
effects linger.  The tendency is to continue to see that person as on
object of my gratifications rather than a real person just like me.

Also, looking at pictures of what our culture says is an ideal looking
women puts into my head ideals of what people should look like
which again interferes with my seeing people as they really are and
puts additions ideas into my head about that person.  An example of
this would be thinking that she (someone) is 
not cute enough to be in a relationship so maybe it isn't worth
talking to her - (what I may have missed with this thinking could be
enormous!).

Corresdonding to these ideas of these people as objects, is the
thought that they are real people but objects to be manipulated.  This
I think engenders for me or has engendered for me in the past, a
feeling of inferority or manipuability on these objects.  This, I
think, is dangerous because I think this is the same attitude that
contributes to violence to women.  If women are objects (especially
abstract ones found in pornography) for my own
gratifications, then what rights do they have?  Are they people at
all?  

So, I have found that this lust and desire around these pictures of
ideal women I have found to be unhealthy for me.  Not that I am not
tempted and not that I don't lust after real women. But, I have found
that this lust typically instantly creates a separation between luster
and lustee that puts a layer between reality and my own experience of
it. 
 
john

    So now that we've discussed the magazine to death [8^], did anyone
    watch the video on HBO last night, showing how it was made??

    I think the insight into the personalities of these gals was great!
    I enjoyed the location shots, how the model and photographers were
    interacting, and the whole thing.  I think that it (the video) did
    prove that they're real people (albeit making big bucks) just like
    you and me (gender excluded).
    
    My fav was Ellie MacPhereson [sp?]!  Her shyness and attractiveness
    were of the "girl next door" type (although my neighbors don't look
    like that!;^)  Hmmm, come to think of it, I think I'll go home and
    pop in the video again 8^).
    
    Jp_who's_waiting_for_the_weekend_to_change_the_oil_in_his_car
    		
    	:^(

    Swimsuit issue huh?  Personally I don't think it is offensive at
    all.....I mean we all go to the beach....dont we?? and what are
    all the woman wearing.....thats right! Swimsuits!!! 
    
    
                                         Lynne

    On a cute note:
    
    Yesterday I watched the HBO show with some friends and my friend's
    6 year old daughter saw a swimsuit with a ruffle (but no butt) and
    said "I have a bathing suit just like that one in blue!"  Her mother
    just said "Over my dead body!"
    
    K.C.

Would it be safe to assume that those of you who are so adamantly against
the male portayals of the female bodies as sex objects in swimsuit isssues of
magazines wear other than the sexy and alluring swim fashions when at the
beach? ;^)

I guess the reason that I'm asking is that it would make me wonder why women
(who wear the same bathing suits in public) would be against having such
swimwear plastered on the pages of a magazine. Is it that the models make you
jealous? Is it because the issue is aimed primarily at men? Pourquoi?

 The  Doctah

    Re .68, I had the same reaction to .62.  I don't see how being born
    beautiful, marrying a rich, famous rock star and having a baby daughter
    can really be cited as accomplishments for Christie Brinkley.  
    
    I didn't see the video, but I read some of the articles in the magazine.
     There was one article about a former model who once appeared on the cover
    of the swimsuit issue, who afterwards was gang raped at knife point,
    and she went on to found an organization which campaigns against
    the exploitation of women in the media.  She believes that the swimsuit
    issue is an example of the media's encouraging men to view women
    as sex objects, which in turn encourages the type of violent incident
    which happened to her.  She was invited to pose for this anniversary
    issue but refused.  I can't remember her name.

    Lorna
    

Doctah,

If I thought you were really listening, I'd tell you.
	Mez

    
    	The psychology as portrayed in .66 is beginnging to make a lot
    of sense to me; I think that reply was very well done. Certainly
    a bombardment of the senses with such would have the effect described,
    I'd think. Such a "bombardment" can come from spending 3.5 hours/day
    in front of the TV, for the last 27 years...The drive for capitol
    gain will make presentation of whatever sells, and if this is somewhat
    out of balance with true reality, well, that fact merely "crumbles at
    the feet" of the mighty dollar!
    
    	I've heard in the past however, that _some_ of this kind of
    thing is necessary; the complete absense of it being the "other"
    out of balance condition which could as well exist. I'm talking
    about the time before the advent of The_Great_Tube, when men perhaps
    resorted to "The Sears and Roebuck Catalogue" for _any_ provocative
    illustrations of this sort. The "victorian" era, or whatever...
                               
    	Well, which is really better for society? Too much? Or none
    at all? I dont believe anyone can answer this with any degree of
    certainty. It comes down to a "protect society from itself" argument.
    One which can be extended to all kinds of contexts...So the actual
    argument is a general one and has been well_discussed here, I think?
    
    	Joe Jas

re: .72:
    Re .68, I had the same reaction to .62.  I don't see how being born
    beautiful, marrying a rich, famous rock star and having a baby daughter
    can really be cited as accomplishments for Christie Brinkley.  

Dunno, Lorna: you did two out of three.  Are you saying that wasn't
an accomplishment on your part?

M.

I remain unconvinced. Wanna take it off line?
	Mez

    Re: .71
    
    >I guess the reason that I'm asking is that it would make me wonder
    >why women (who wear the same bathing suits in public) would be against
    >having such swimwear plastered on the pages of a magazine.
    
    I'm not sure how to interpret the parentheses.  Is the enclosed
    comment meant to identify a subset of women or to describe women?

    I guess I wasn't really clear and I apologize.
    
    What I was trying to say in .62 was that these women were intelligent
    and successful, as well as being beautiful. They also balanced their
    lives by being married to people who can really strain a relationship
    as well as being a strain themselves on that same relationship.
    
    <I think I'm going to drop out of this conference. There's no valuing
     differences in here anymore. The nit picking is getting intense.
     I felt that being in here would be a learning and give and take
     experience, it's no longer enjoyable.>
    
    Farewell,
    
    Ken

    Ken, please understand that it was not at all obvious from the way
    you phrased .62 what you meant:
    
    "Carol Alt (married to a NY
    Ranger hockey player),Elle MacPherson(married to a French Painter),
    Christy Brinkley(mother and married to Billy Joel)all show that
    they're more than a piece of fluff."   
               
    Typically, parenthetical phrases are used to illuminate, qualify, or
    justify the thesis in which they're imbedded.  For example, since I
    still haven't the faintest idea who Carol Alt is, it's hard not to
    conclude from the way you wrote the above passage that you believe the
    way she "show[ed she's] more than a piece of fluff" was by marrying
    some hockey player!
    
    						=maggie   

    And for those who might have missed the SI Swimsuit issue, there
    is going to be a made-for-TV movie broadcast this coming Sunday
    night.
    
    Its title?
    
    "Swimsuit".............................naturally. :-)
    
      Alan

    Re: .82
    
    Ah, yes, it's sweeps time again.  "Hmmm, we need to attract the
    viewers.  Well, sex always works.  Come up with an excuse to parade
    scantily-clad females across the screen."
    
    So glad I don't have a TV.

    Re .82 and .83
    
    Why wouldn't it attract viewers just as much to parade scantily
    clad *males* across the screen? I think that if we could answer
    that one, we'd go a long way toward understanding why the SI issue
    - and pornography in general - are so troublesome to so many of
    us.
    
    Meanwhile I'm unplugging my TV and using it as a planter!
    
    Dorian
    

 Yeah, that was a great editorial. I especially liked his turn of phrase 
around "those who believe that a woman's place is in the home, rather than
rounding third and heading for it!"

				Nigel

While I liked the "rounding third" part of the editorial, I thought about
some of the women athletes I've known.

Many athletic competitions require an athlete to over-develope some muscles
at the expense of others.  For example,  swimmers (and tri-atheletes) have
large upper-body muscles, while distance runners have relatively little
upper-body musculature.  Long-distance swimmers (Diana Nyad) tend to be
rather Rubenesque (indeed, somewhat blubbery): the fat gives boyancy and
insulation from the cold.  Sprint bicyclists have large thighs, etc.

I.e., for any definition of "physical beauty", I can pick a sport whose
participants are unbeautiful in your eyes.

One of the most intriguing parts of the editorial was the speaker's
claim that the change in feminine beauty style is a direct result
of Title 9 (which forced schools to give equal emphasis to women's
athletics).  This does not make sense to me, as similar body styles
are in fashion in Europe (which does not have Title 9).  A better
cause, in my opinion, is the change in work habits:  when the poor
people had to do outdoors physical labor, the "stylish" physical
fashion was that of the person rich enough to work indoors.  Now
that the poor work sitting down inside, beautiful people look
like they do real work.

Martin.

    

    I've been really behind in notes lately, but I wanted to respond to 
    at least part of what I've read in this string.  I liked a lot of
    things about the article posted in the base note, and I wanted to 
    respond to what some folks have said about it not being good 
    "persuasive communication" because of its angry tone.  There was a 
    time in my life when I would have felt exactly the same way, so I'd 
    like to explain a little bit about how and why my thinking has changed.

    I went to a women's college in Western Mass.  The college is surrounded
    by a large feminist community, and there were lots of woman-oriented 
    events: speakers, plays, fundraisers, etc.  I went to a lot of these 
    events, but I often found myself criticizing the speakers because they 
    sounded so *angry*.  And I often thought to myself, "if my father were 
    here, he would walk out after about 2 minutes and never learn
    anything."  And so, I concluded, these feminist gatherings amounted to 
    little more than preaching to the choir, and this, I also concluded, 
    was bad.  In fact, I even "took on" one of the most respected feminist 
    scholars on campus when she told a story about an argument she had
    with one of her male colleagues.  I told her that her anger would only 
    alienate the men who so desperately needed to be educated.  I was one
    of the better students in her class, and when she looked at me with
    her mouth wide open, unable to respond; I believed that I had "won" a
    big point.

    Years later I did some political work in Philadelphia.  I worked for a 
    group that did lobbying around energy and labor issues, and my job as a 
    canvasser was to knock on doors and get people to sign a statement of 
    support and donate money.  During the canvasser training, we were told 
    that you can't really expect to change anyone's mind during a
    30-second "rap."  (A "rap" refers to what you say when someone opens
    the door.)  Our job, we were told, was to find supporters, to find
    people who already agreed with what we wanted to do and then:
	1. Show them that there's reason to hope, that we and others like
	   us are working hard on issues that are important to us all, and 
	   that we're having some success.
	2. Get them to help us (with money or time) so that we can keep
	   doing the work that we *both* believe in.

    Because our first goal was to find supporters, we didn't waste time on 
    people who were hostile or obviously skeptical.  I had a hard time with 
    this, at first.  I really felt that I should be out there trying to 
    convince people of the rightness of our position.  But slowly... I began
    to realize that with regard to highly emotional issues, like equal rights, 
    abortion, and some economic and ecological issues, too; people hold
    very strong beliefs.  Those beliefs might shift over time, but they're
    not going to be changed by a single communication, even a carefully-worded
    communication.

    Sometimes we do have to be careful.  Sometimes we have to lobby 
    non-supporters for things that we need.  And to do that we have to try to 
    frame our needs in terms that they understand.  We have to try and convince 
    them that it's in their interest to support us.  But I don't think we have 
    to spend all our time and energy convincing our non-supporters to help us.
    In fact, I would argue, if you spend all your time trying to get those who
    disagree with your world view to support you anyway, you will probably burn 
    out very fast... because you will almost never feel successful.  I
    think that sometimes we have to spend time and energy finding each
    other and inspiring each other -- and the expression of anger can be 
    inspiring.  That's what I now believe those feminists were doing when
    I was in college.  They were energizing and inspiring each other.  
    Yes, they were preaching to the choir, and now I see that the
    women in that choir needed it so they could go off and keep doing
    their work.  

    When I read the piece  that Rachel's friend wrote, I figured that
    most of the men and lots of the women who read it would be angry and 
    would probably dismiss it as angry, feminist garbage.  But I suspect
    that some folks who read it would be called to act or would look at
    things like the swimsuit issue of SI differently.  I dare say that she 
    probably reached her audience, and I think it took a lot of courage to 
    do it in a less-than-supportive forum.  I hope that there will always 
    be women who will take those risks *and* supportive communities that 
    will help keep the risk-takers strong.
    
    Justine
    

	RE: .88

	That's great.  Thanks.

    
    re: .88
    
    An excellent point. I often feel that these notesfiles are "preaching
    to the converted." That is why I will not go into Soapbox to argue
    with a bunch of right-wingers, but I WILL argue with someone in
    this file (as I have been doing lately) whom I believe has basically 
    good intentions.
                                        
    Roberta

    
    Re: .88
    
    Justine, what a good note!  There's a sense of balance and direction
    that you brought to this topic.  It got me thinking about what we see
    as anger.  For example, I've been described as easy-going, even placid.
    When I get worked up about something, and express my thoughts strongly,
    some people will see my caring and passion as anger.  And yet, if
    someone who was not usually so calm used the same tone and the same
    words, it might be seen as par for the course.  A lot depends on what
    we want and expect to see in a person's behavior.  Unfortunately, it is
    not always easy for women in our culture to express strong feelings and
    be assertive without being termed as angry by listeners.  My wife and I
    have talked a lot about this from her point of view and, as a result,
    I think I "hear" things differently now.  When I read the base note
    article, I wound up focusing more on the caring and passion behind the
    message rather than feeling any sting from the anger.  (Hope this note
    is coherent - it's been a long day...)  
    
    Ron

    Re: .88
    
    All true.  However, I think the "less angry" approach might have
    more effect in the long run.  True, you're not going to change the
    minds of people who hold their opinions strongly.  However, many
    people hold an opinion that they haven't really thought about. 
    They've sort of inherited it.  A challenge might get them to dig
    in their heels, while a "have you considered this?" approach might
    get them to start thinking.
    
    Also, while it's practical to write off the people that you won't
    convince, what about those who are still forming their opinions?
    Or those who will be forming their opinions in the future?  What
    environment do you want for the dialogue in the future?  The problem
    I see with the "angry" approach is that it encourages an atmosphere
    of confrontation rather than cooperation.
    
    In a way, the situation is similar to the fight to abolish apartheid.
    The closer people get to their goal, the harder they push to acheive
    it before the opportunity vanishes.  Failure is so much harder to
    accept when the goal is closer.  Change is threatening and people
    who shove, shove, shove for change are threatening.  What happens
    is that one side shoves and the other side shoves back.
    
    This in no way means that I believe women should sit back and wait
    for equal treatment to appear.  That's not going to work (if nothing
    else, sheer inertia will keep it from happening).  I think a more
    productive approach is to create the sense of a common goal.  "We
    want women to be treated with the same consideration as men" where
    "we" means everyone.  I think that's already started to happen and
    I think that's the approach that needs to be fostered -- the sense
    of cooperation.
    
    How to do this?  The approach I've seen is along the lines of
    "intelligent and rational people believe that women should be treated
    with the same consideration as men."  This is always implied, never
    stated.  Almost everyone likes to think of themselves as intelligent
    and rational.  The idea of given women and men equal consideration
    is treated as "of course."  Differences in treatment are still
    monitored, but the emphasis is not "Women are being discriminated
    against!" but "What do we do to fix this?"  Even here, where the
    problem of equal consideration for women is most commonly discussed,
    I don't see much talk of solutions.  The general goal exists, but
    how do we get there?
    
    Part of the problem is that progress is going to be slow.  One note
    discussed how to raise feminist (or at least non-sexist) children.
    Well, it will take time for those efforts to be discernible.  Part
    of the problem is the sheer size of the endeavor.  Inertia is a
    nasty thing.  That's one reason why I favor the less confrontational
    approach; it echoes the natural model of building momentum.  Early
    progress *will* be slow.  Expect it.  Plan on it.  Right now,
    I'd say the movement for equal consideration has gotten a fair bit
    of momentum going.  Not as much as it needs, of course, but a good
    start.  Professional women are not something to be surprised about.
    The next step -- how about removing the surprise factor for homemaking
    men?  They already have their own comic strip.  Not much, and not
    the best forum, but a start.

Thanx Justine. This note needed another point of view.
	Mez

Re: the last few notes....

	A voice of reason is a wonderful thing.  Thank you for
	your creative, cooperative, joyous solution-oriented
	approaches!

Victoria-"No Phone" Walton

 I'd like to make one comment about Justine's reply. I agreed with alot of
what she said, but I disagreed with one small point. Justine stated that she 
thought that the editorial had reached its audience. I don't think that it's 
true. I think the tone of the editorial alienated it's intended audience (mostly
male). 

 I agree that "preaching to the choir" has some benefit, namely rousing the
emotions of your people and spurring them on to action. The tone of a speech
to your supporters can and should be much different than the tone of a
speech (or article) addressed to a hostile or neutral audience, becuase the
intended results in each case are different.

 The Doctah

OK - .0, can you tell us who her intended audience was?
	Mez

 Given that Ms. Mccaffrey is gone, I'll respond to .96 by quoting .0.

"Anyway, the following article is from The Observer, The 
    Independent Student Newspaper of Notre Dame and Saint Mary's and is 
    reproduced with the author's permission."

 Thus, the intended audience was Notre Dame and St. Mary's. While admittedly
St. Mary's is a (either all women or predominately women) school, it is 
significantly smaller than Notre Dame which is predominately male. So one might
expect that her audience was male. For further clues, let's look at the article 
itself:

 "Hey guys,"

 "After all, imagine your mother's disappointment if by
    some accident your Playboy or Penthouse subscription were to find
    its way to your home during the summer." 
(seems to be directed towards males)

 "    	The swimsuit issue is an opportunity for Notre Dame men to compare
    women at Notre Dame and Saint Mary's to the women in the photos."

 I think that qualifies as a preponderance of the evidence.

 the doctah

    
    I still disagree about who the audience is.  I think that someone
    who has not (yet?) questioned whether or not showing scantily-clad
    women in a sports magazine means anything is not going to do so
    no matter how politely a letter to the editor might be worded.
    However someone (male or female) who has begun to question such
    things might be moved to take the next step (whatever that is).
    
    I liked the article.  It made me feel good and gave me hope to read
    it.  I've been worried lately that the younger women of today don't
    seem angry, maybe because they've experienced less overt sexism
    (so far) or because they don't believe that the exploitation, rape,
    and murder of women OUT THERE touch them.  Seeing a college-aged 
    woman taking a risk, showing her anger (and some of her fear, too,
    as I read it) made me feel good, and I think there are probably some 
    students on that campus who feel the same way.  I went to a highschool 
    that had been all male until just before I went there.  It was very 
    risky to be a feminist at that school -- when I spoke out, I got 
    labelled as "one of those."  But the other women who weren't afraid of 
    such labels found me as a result of my speaking out.   I found my community,
    and I would take that risk again.  The men at that school didn't
    get educated by me, but they didn't get educated by the subtler,
    more diplomatic women either.  I realize now that I didn't need
    to change my approach; I needed to be clearer about what expectations
    and goals I could reasonably have.  Most of them continued on in their
    male-dominated world -- untouched by the women around them.  A very 
    small number of those men took responsibility for their own growth, and
    because my friends and I had identified ourselves as feminist, they 
    reached out to us.  I have found that when I'm ready to take a new
    step in my political growth, I find my own teachers; I don't expect
    them to take responsibility for finding me or for waiting for me while
    I catch up.  If the anger of my teachers frightens me or makes me
    defensive, I try to examine that response as part of the work that
    I need to do.
               
    Justine

I have not read the previous 98 notes.
I have not seen the SI swimsuit issue.
I have never been to Notre Dame.

I will make one oberservation:

    "It's true that women criticize men, physically and
    otherwise, but in no such conspiritive way.  There is no national
    campaign in which women devote a week to gazing at photos and wishing
    their husbands and boyfriends looked like Greg Louganis or Tom Selleck.
    Most women would be too busy to do that anyway."

    In a note where some women expressed their desire to see "Burt Reynolds
    baking" cookies in the buff, one womannoter put it in an enlightening
    way:

    Women are turned on more by reading erotica where men are more
    turned on by visual erotica. -- (a paraphrase) 

    This is true of me and my mate.  Though I have not seen the issue, I
    would be lying if I said that such material doesn't stimulate the
    imagination.  However, I do not indulge in wishing my wife looked
    like them - at least I don't think I do.  I do not often entertain
    "if only..." situations.

    When this difference regarding stimulation was articulated through 
    this notes file, I modified my behavior to include verbal and 
    written erotica (you know, love notes) and it has made a difference 
    in the recpetion I get when I'm looking to assuage my own desires. 

    I don't know if this raises another issue or not, but understanding this
    difference has helped my wife and I get even closer.

    Re: .98
    
    >I think that someone who has not (yet?) questioned whether or not
    >showing scantily-clad women in a sports magazine means anything
    >is not going to do so no matter how politely a letter to the editor
    >might be worded.
    
    I disagree, but then I disagree with most absolute statements.

        I  learned from the radio today that NONE of the women featured
        in the Sports Illustrated Issue were women-of-color.

        People of color dominate athletic competition these  days.  Our
        Olympic  sex  symbol,  FLO-JO,  is an African American women.
        What a slap in the face for this  magazine  to  totally  ignore
        the  beauty  of  an  African-American,  Asian,  Latino or other
        women of color.

        At the same time, this magazine owes it success to exploiting
        men-of-color  beating each  other  to  a  pulp in a boxing ring,
        tackling one another with steroid filled bodies on a football
        field, or jumping  all over one another on a basketball court.

        I  read  all  one  hundred  replies here and there were 
        mentions of how representative of beauty these women are. 
        They  might  be  pretty,  but whether or not they represent the
        ultimate in 'beauty' is truly a  matter  of  opinion;  and  not
        mine. Beauty comes in many colors!

    Re: .101
    
    Not that this has to do with SI, but you might be pleased to know:
    
    Rolling Stone's latest issue includes a large "What's Hot" section
    (please no discussion on what you think of that.)  One of the articles
    was on "hot" models and one of the four models was a woman-of-color
    from England.  (The same issue included a Gap t-shirt ad featuring
    Jackie Joyner-Kersee.)

>    Rolling Stone's latest issue includes a large "What's Hot" section
>    (please no discussion on what you think of that.)  One of the articles
>    was on "hot" models and one of the four models was a woman-of-color
>    from England.  (The same issue included a Gap t-shirt ad featuring
>    Jackie Joyner-Kersee.)

        They  must  have  changed  management  or something. Evidently,
        Tracy  Chapman was the first Black to appear on a Rolling Stone
        Cover. Can you believe it? With all the  African  Americans  we
        have in the music business????

re. .103
>        They  must  have  changed  management  or something. Evidently,
>        Tracy  Chapman was the first Black to appear on a Rolling Stone
>        Cover. Can you believe it? With all the  African  Americans  we
>        have in the music business????

   Not true.  Michael Jackson's been on at least twice that I recall,
    and there have been others (Jimi Hendrix, and what's-his-face-with-the-
    dreadlocks-who-won-a-grammy-but-whose-name-I-forget-at-the-moment,
    for example).
    
    I grant you that blacks have been underrepresented in RS, but on
    the other hand, it was originally more a "rock" mag, more than
    (more recently) a "pop" mag.
    
    Rodney M.

   >Not true.  Michael Jackson's been on at least twice that I recall,
>    and there have been others (Jimi Hendrix, and what's-his-face-with-the-
>    dreadlocks-who-won-a-grammy-but-whose-name-I-forget-at-the-moment,
>    for example).

        hmmm.  What  was the significance of Tracy Chapman being on the
        cover of the Rolling Stone? I'll have to re-research it.
    
>    I grant you that blacks have been underrepresented in RS, but on
>    the other hand, it was originally more a "rock" mag, more than
>    (more recently) a "pop" mag.

          Well,  if  you  were   to   ask   Little   Richard,   African
        Americans/Blacks invented Rock-n-Roll!

        						Roger M    

    Re: .105
    
    No argument from me on the origins of R&R!  
    
    ... and re the Rolloing Stone cover issue: I was just thinking
    that *maybe* Tracy Chapman was the first black *woman* to be on
    a Rolling Stone cover.  I can't recall any others offhand, but that
    doesn't mean much.
    
    Rodney

    Was not Lisa Bonet (may be spelled incorrectly, but the woman from
    the Cosby show) on the cover of RS just a year ago?
    
    DougO

    G'Day All,
    
    	We don't get SI over here in Australia (that I have seen anyway)
    but we did recently get a TV show titled 'The Making of the Sports
    Illustrated Swimsuit Issue'.  It was a one hour show and was an
    insight into how it actually goes together.  Whilst I certainly
    didn't mind looking at the beautiful girls I also liked seeing the
    locations that the shots were taken.  Being on video instead of
    still allowed much more to be seen (of the scenery :-)).  
    
    	Did you guys get the show over there as well or do they think
    the mag is enough for you?
    
    	David.
    
    

    re:.109
    
    That programme was shown on a cable channel over here.
    
    --- jerry

        I'm  curious.  As  young  minds are being molded and many of us
        are trying to dispel stereotypes, is it important to  you  that
        women-of-color  be included in America's portrayal of beauty? I
        think we need to demand that women-of-color be depicted in  the
        same fashion as white women. 

        Sports  illustrated  made  a  definite  statement about what it
        thinks  of  the  the   standards   of   beauty   by   excluding
        women-of-color  in  this  issue. Knowing that many young people
        are going to buy this most popular issue and have their tastes
        be  influenced  by it, don't you think it important to show
        beauty in all colors?

        And  what  about  the  people of color who buy it? This sends a
        signal that we don't have anyone who looks good enough. I  know
        that  is  a  lie,  but  I am 28. It could shatter the dreams of
        some stunning 15  year  old  would-be-model-of-color.

        Granted,  the  SI  issue  alone  is  probably  no big deal. But
        collectively, it  is  representative  of  the  oppression  that
        still  exists  today  that  is  often  overlooked by society in
        general, but continues to feed into stereotypes.

        Women-of-color are just as beautiful as non-women-of-color.

        						Roger M

    
    To me it simply says that women-of-color are less likely to pose
    for this type of exploitative photography than are white women.
    
    Perhaps women-of-colour have a higher moral attitude than white
    women?
    
    /. Ian .\

    re: .112
    
    To me it simply suggests that SI believes it will sell more
    magazines by choosing the models it did.
    
    Steve

    
    Perhaps, but I have a professional model directory in my office
    that lists several thousand models available for photographic work,
    and of those prepared to do swimsuit 'glamour' work something like
    98% are white. In the fashion categories the percentage is more
    like 65%
      
    /. Ian .\

                Re: Note 431.114 by ODIHAM::PHILPOTT_I

>    and of those prepared to do swimsuit 'glamour' work something like
>    98% are white. In the fashion categories the percentage is more
>    like 65%

         Maybe that is because those women-of-color have bought that old
        school  philosophy  that  they  aren't   perceived   as   sexy.
        Afterall,  swimsuit  accents  the model and fashion accents the
        clothes. 

        Believe me, I've  known  many  an  African-American/Black  that
        wanted to be a model in my day and in general, people-of-color
        are taught that there is no  market for  models-of-color  except
        to do possibly a little fashion, but mostly advertisements or
        literature. Nothing sexy or glamorous!
         

    re: .114
    
    No surprise to me, Ian.  All I'm saying is that I suspect that
    it has more to do with market demand than with morals.  I believe
    that if SI or "cheesecake" publishers decided they could sell more
    by using more minority models, we'd see those numbers change pronto.
    
    Meanwhile, I finally realized what it was that turns me off about
    the SI anniversary swimsuit issue:  it's that nearly the whole thing
    was ads!  Yeah, sure - I'm an unreconstructed American male. . .I
    like to look at attractive women (o.k., so I like to ogle; at least
    I don't drool any more. . .well, not publicly anyhow).  But, to
    me, after a couple of pages of the regular annual issue, it's like
    pretty much like looking at a Spiegal catalog.  And, with the
    anniversary issue, whadaya have on pages with no swimsuits?  More ads!
    
    All things considered, if I had to choose between a standard annual
    swimsuit issue and the anniversary issue, I'd take the standard
    issue; at least I could break up the advertising with an occasional
    story about sports.
    
    Fortunately, I have other choices in this wonderful land, so I can
    stick to my Guitar Player and old issues of Mad magazine.
    
    Steve

    A few months ago, Phil Donahue had five "star" models on his show,
    one of them being Kathy Ireland of SI fame, one Christie Brinkley
    and three others whose names I didn't know/catch.  One of them was
    black.  She noted that even during the time that she was _the_ top
    model in the industry, the media also referred to her as the top
    _black_ model.
    

    -Tracy
    (and no, I don't know how she defined "top model.")
    

        Does the name Iman ring a bell? 

    Re: .118
    
    That's the name that came to my mind when I recalled seeing pictures
    of a very elegant model.  I suspect that non-white models have more
    opportunities in the European markets.

    
    In general I may very well have been wrong to bring up a moral issue
    on behalf of the models. 
    
    Whether the chicken or the egg came first I do not know (are there 
    few black models because black women don't want to be models, or 
    because there isn't much work for them to do?)
    
    I do know that in the very small number of cases (less than a dozen)
    were I have asked non-professional models to pose for me (and be
    paid) I have not yet been turned down by a white woman and have
    three times been turned down by black women: once because her mother
    objected to her 'flaunting herself', and once because her boy friend
    objected to it, the third lady didn't give a reason beyond simply
    not wanting to do it, and I didn't press the point. Only one black
    woman agreed, and she insisted on her mother coming to the studio
    as chaperone, and having a veto on the pictures (I had no objection
    to either condition). This was all advertising work, and all the
    initial sessions were bikini sessions for advertisements for major
    engineering concerns (similar in many ways to the shots that appear
    in SI).                                       

    Incidentally "top models" are defined in terms of their hourly fee,
    or net annual income ...
        
    /. Ian .\

    This was all advertising work, and all the initial sessions were bikini
    sessions for advertisements for major engineering concerns (similar in
				    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    

    RE .117 (I think):
    
    I meant to say "...was _always_ (not also) referred to as the top
    _black_ model..."
    
    The name doesn't sound familiar, but that doesn't mean that's not
    she.  I'm just not very familiar with who's who in modeling.
          
    -Tracy
    

         Re>431.4
    Men like looking at pictures of beautful women in and out of swimsuites
    and I am not afraid to say so.If you don't like it to bad.
                                  
                                     Joe
    

    
    re:.123
    i take it that since you responded to 431.4 you have not read the
    intervening 100+ replies that discuss exactly what is wrong with the
    Sports Illustrated 'swimsuit' issue and do not understand how offensive
    it is to say 'if you don't like it to [sic] bad'.
     

    in re note .123, please see =wn= policy in note 1.20
    
    Bonnie J
    comoderator