From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: aceptable actions?  (something worse than photographers
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:36:07 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1bg0gvINN3l7@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
>>wat replies:
>I find it notable that -wat- (in another post) criticizes women for not
>being able to put up with sexually harrassing email in response to 
>rec.nude posts.  But here he accuses people of being "controlling and
>insensitive" "sickos" for their (questionably) rude remarks.  Why not tell
>this guy to "be a man and ignore them"?   Seems like a (self-serving)
>double standard to me.
---
	You are comparing apples and oranges.

	In the case of women with the email, the suggestion was to 'protect'
them from anyone sending them personal email.  The correct analogy here
would be to protect that lone male from anyone approaching him for
any reason.  This is obvious bullshit in either case.  As in the
email case, I believe the guy should have either ignored your friend
or told her where to go depending on circumstances -- this in no
way justifies someone else harrassing him, or someone harrassing 
women in email.  Harrassment is wrong.  Period.  But protecting people
from harrassment by putting protective enclosures around them and
saying 'off limits' to everyone is equally wrong.


>I expect that -wat- and others (based on discussions of the
>last few weeks) would have found it perfectly acceptable if she had
>walked up and said "Do you mind if I help you with that?", but saying
>"why don't you go home and deal with that privately?" somehow makes
>her a sicko.   The logic escapes me.
---
	Because in the first case, she is offering something.  In the second,
she is "suggesting" (it isn't really a "suggestion") that he leave.  What
is rude is not the words she used, but the fact that she responded to
a male with an erection by asking him to leave.  I think that is rude
given the circumstances you described.  


>Finally, let me say that *none* of us know enough about this
>situation to know what this guy was doing, or whether he deserved
>any of the comments.  I'm not going to say they were justified
>because I simply don't know---I wasn't there.  Neither was -wat-
>or any of the other guys who think they know all the facts.
---
	I didn't say I knew *all* the facts.  It was rude based on the
facts as they were presented.  If there are other details you wish
to include, fine.  If the guy was staring at someone, he should be
told, perhaps, that his staring is making some people uncomfortable and
could he not do it.  But the description you gave described no such
actions.  I stand by what I wrote.

-wat-

>PS: I like this response, BTW:
>>"Oh no, I don't think so, I've got plenty of sun screen on and can
>>last the whole day.  And I really do think I can decide for myself
>>when it is time for me to leave.  It was nice of you to show so much 
>>concern, ....even though I don't appreciate it."
>>Jim P.   (jp@moscom.com)
---
	Yeah -- I liked that one too.
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell