Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: fme@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Erotic images on display in the workplace
Message-ID: <1991Jun14.190752.209@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 91 00:08:51 GMT
References: <1991Jun13.155936.12964@aero.org> <1991Jun13.204257.11866@MDI.COM>
Lines: 91
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: glacier.ics.uci.edu

In article <1991Jun13.204257.11866@MDI.COM>, gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes:

> Perhaps, but I never claim to speak for *anyone* else, men or otherwise,
> in matters of taste.  Removing offensive material from public places such
> as your workplace is a matter of courtesy that should apply to everyone
> regardless of gender.  In my office, I have a large picture of Boris
> Badenov about to blow Bullwinkle Moose to little bits with a bomb (I'm
> a Rocky and Bullwinkle fan).  If an animal rights activist complained
> sincerely, down it would come.
> --

Hmmm ... and so if someone was offended by your shoes, you would go
buy new ones ? If someone was offended by your nose you would have it
surgicaly altered ? If someone was offended by your color you would
have yourself tie-dyed ? If someone was offended by your speech, you
would speak words that were different from how you really felt ? If
someone were offended by your very thoughts, would you take
reconditioning therapy as so to make those thoughts acceptable ? If
someone were offended by your very being would you throw yourself in
front of a train ?

In a world of 5 million + people, we are going to find individuals
that are offended by essentially every possible sight, sound, smell,
religion, philosophy, action and idea. The question is - How far
should one deviate from ones own true self just to minimize the
inevitable frictions that arise when one sentient being must interact
with another ? There is a grave danger of losing ones self to the
crowd - or of becoming too familiar with the art of deceit.
Plasticity, compliance and selflessness are all traits highly prized
by the totalitarians among us. How far is too far ?

The 'sincerity' of a complaint is no guide - everyone is totally
sincere when it comes to their personal aesthetics and prejudices. The
sheer sexuality of say a photograph is no guide either - remember that
anti-sensuality is just another prejudice drilled into us as children
and should be held in the same disrepute as racism. Vague notions
along the lines of "harassment" or "devaluation of personhood" have
the unmistakable stench of political rhetoric and are so indefinite in
meaning that each and every person in the entire world can lay claim
to this kind of oppression.

Insofar as the ideas expressed in this thread about sexual images
serving the purposes of 'harassment' or 'male bonding' or simply
'gross-out potential' go - they can be used in any or all of these
capacities. We all remember how little boys often cultivate snakes,
lizards and spiders just for the shock effect they produce on the
differently-enculturated little girls (I will never, EVER, use the
term 'pre-women' in any other context than sarcasm - speaking of
things that offend). We also remember how traditional feminine toys
and props managed to 'gross-out' the boys to a similar degree. Should
children be denied pets, toys and hobbies that even have the least
degree of inter-group 'gross-out' potential ? On this issue, I tend to
agree with those who will admit that they find images of nudes and/or
erotic images pleasing to their minds. I also understand that many
professional women feel that their worth is somehow diminished by the
very idea of someone concentrating on the more sexual aspects of
womanhood and I understand that women are less likely to feel
comfortable aggressively asserting that they are more than just a
collection of nice-looking body parts.

Who said that a woman can be either a sexual entity -or- a respected
professional ? Of course, they can be both at the same time - except
for the problems produced by the deeply enculturated prejudices
regarding sexuality. From time to time, we do come across a woman who
manages to maximize *all* her potentials and eludes the bonds of
prejudice. The most well-known such figure in the USA today is the
entertainer Madonna. Not all women have the sheer force of
personallity that Madonna can bring into play to manage to be both
fully sexual and completely respected as an intelligent and creative
professional. If Madonna can be thought of as having a utility that
goes beyond the immediate entertainment she provides it is to help set
an example to both men -and- women that sensuality in no way devalues
a womans moral worth. So long as this either/or bias exists, I can
appreciate a woman feeling a little threatened by overt sexuality in
the workplace. The road to peace is twofold - work to remove the
either/or prejudice and for the males to show a little empathy for a
womans insecurity that they themselves help to perpetuate.

This is not an endorsement for removing sexually explicit items from
the workplace - that amounts to reverse discrimination and breeds
anger and deep resentment. What I am suggesting is to put a little
effort into reducing the 'shock potential' of such items and to put a
great deal of effort into making anti-sensuality prejudices a thing of
the past. In any case, empathy is a superior approach to punative
corporate regulation.  Such regs simply re-enforce the notion that
sexuallity is something that merits punishment and shame - and this
perpetuates the problem.

-- Jim Mason
-- Disclaimer : All ideas expressed are my own and may not represent
   those of my employers.