Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Erotic images on display in the workplace Message-ID: Date: 21 Jun 91 16:29:34 GMT References: Organization: Informix Software, Inc. Lines: 136 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) writes: -Thank you, Alden Gannon and Robert Coleman (and others, but I want to -respond to them in particular), for discussing this topic in a more -intellectual and polite fashion than most (especially some of my -mail!). Gosh. You're welcome! -Here are some further thoughts of mine on the subject. -Several people have mentioned that, in many cases, people don't -realize that these posters are offensive to some. They may also be -ignorant of company guidelines or of potential legal consequences. I -guess I didn't factor this in. I thought more people were educated -about workplace guidelines on this subject. -Several people have also mentioned that these pictures are simply -reflective of what people like, and are no different from any other -type of picture. Ah, but society (the workplace, in this case) has -decided that they are a different type of picture. There are -guidelines against these type of pictures, but not against, say, -landscapes. You might not like the rules. But if you do know the -rules, then you can't say that the pictures are just like any other -type of picture. They are treated differently. When I expressed the idea, I meant that they were no different from other types of pictures *to me*. You were asking for a statement from my point of view. I'm aware of how society views them, but I don't necessarily think society is entirely sane. :-) -Robert, in his list of reasons why to display these pictures in the -office (great list! but which reasons do you think are more common?), -comes up with an interesting followup question of his own. -robert> Perhaps, since one tends to -robert> surround oneself with things that express one's personality, they put -robert> it up to express an important part of themselves (why does society -robert> require us to suppress our sexual nature, anyway?). -Do you think that enjoying sexual pictures outside of work, or -privately, is suppressing one's sexual nature? Or is it just -directing it to a socially accepted time and place? I suppose it -depends upon how you look at it. I look at it as just fitting the -activity to the situation, not as suppression. I am what I am, and part of me is sexual in nature. The pictures are just a small part of a general environment where I must come to work and pretend that I have no sexual element to my personality. Is this a great burden, as opposed to directing it to a socially accepted time and place? No, not really. Mildly annoying. Is it suppressing one's sexual nature? Sure. For a while, we pretend that we're robots. It's not a lot of fun pretending to be something you're not, though society requires that in a lot of circumstances. Let's pretend that society had a little more stringent rules. Say, one didn't express one's sexual nature *at all* unless one were in a bed with a married partner and in a proper missionary position, between the hours of 9:00 and 11:00 at night. With the lights off. :-) Would society have defined some accepted time and place? Sure. Would you feel like your sexuality was being suppressed at other times and places? This is the way it was, not too long ago, in an era we've now labelled "repressive". -I find it interesting to discuss the separation of personal life from -work life, and where different people draw the line. One area where I -draw the line, for example, is enjoyment of erotic pictures. There -are lots of things that I do not do in the office. Does that mean I -am suppressing them? I don't feel suppressed by having to do certain -things outside the office. Look, it's not a very big deal, but it is annoying. Let's say you were a dancer, and you wanted to put some pictures of ballet dancers on your wall for decoration. Now the boss comes in, says she doesn't like ballet and these are distracting, so take them down. Well, it's no big deal, you can work there without those pictures, but it's kind of annoying. (BTW, I've danced ballet, so it's not a sexist example, OK? :-) ) Or suppose the company has a policy of no family pictures at work. In fact, no discussion of your family is allowed at work. You can live without those, but why? Why should you have to pretend you don't have a family while at work? You're a human being, you probably have family, it's an important part of you, and if you pretend you don't have family you're three screws closer to being a robot. Different people are more or less annoyed at having to suppress different things. What's easy for you may be less easy for someone else. I'm sure, if you thought hard enough, you could think of something you can do now at work, like a passing joke with a co-worker, for instance, that if you weren't allowed to do it at work, would leave you with the feeling of being suppressed. -Here's another possibility: -robert> If I didn't care about offending people, I might put -robert> them up as a freedom-of-speech message, and a rebellion, -robert> since I don't like other people putting peer pressure on -robert> me to conform to societal rules that I think are silly, -robert> or declaring my sex drive to be wrong or evil. -If one wants to rebel against societal norms, why pick this particular -one? Well, for those that do for this reason, I'm sure that there are thousands of other people who are battling other silly societal rules. If there are people who like to battle silly societal rules, some of them are going to end up battling this one, right? Or perhaps they battle all silly societal rules at once. Or maybe they just drew this one out of a hat. :-) -And if the society decides that the sex drive is best contained -outside the office, does that mean that society sees it as "wrong or -evil"? I don't think so. I think it just means that society has -deemed it as something to be kept private, not wrong or evil. Now, -certain parts of society may find sexuality wrong or evil, but that -may be unrelated to the rule about keeping it private. They are not -necessarily related. I don't know. Used to be, men weren't supposed to cry in public. That was shameful. Back when sex wasn't supposed to be talked about or admitted, women weren't supposed to be in public while they were pregnant. It was shameful. I think the things society demands you do in private are things that society is ashamed of. Wrong or evil? Maybe too harsh words, but things that society approves of it doesn't relegate to the back rooms. Fact is, I'm not supposed to carry my sexuality around with me. Yet I do. I don't force it on other people, but it's there. Society considers this wrong, therefore, I must be bad. That's the message I get...and I really don't think I'm bad. :-( Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.