X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL8]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3327
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:31:34 -0500
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Rick Adams <adamsr@AIS.ORG>
Subject:      RE: Feminism

Kathy writes:

 ==>         You never told me whether or not you complained about that
 ==> out-of-line prof at U of M!

    I did, and was ultimately informed that she claimed that since the
discussion dealt with the legal aspects of Women's Studies (i.e., the
requirement that a man be admitted to the course), it fell within the
parameters of the course structure. Of course, there was a bit of
variation between my memory of the event and hers - particularly with
respect to the primary focus of the discussion and the expression of
sexist remarks which accompanied it. The end result, as may be expected,
was to dead-file the complaint.  After all, none of her =previous=
students had ever complained that she demonstrated sexist behavior (of
course they were all women, but . . .)!

 ==>         (I still disagree with you about who (men or women)
 ==> primarily supports "Chippendales" and "Playgirl", and would also
 ==> argue that the surface content differs greatly between these two
 ==> and publications like "Hustler."  However, I too am a first
 ==> amendment rights advocate.)

    I don't think of "Hustler" in the same way I do "Playboy" or similar
magazines. It's more of a "red-neck journal" type of publication the
major value of which is its ability to contribute to the formation of
ulcers in fundamentalist televangelists and censorship advocates. ;-)

    Incidently, you cite "Esquire" in your earlier message - "Esquire,"
unlike "Playboy" =doesn't= include nude pictures or particularly sexual
material - you might view it as a cross between "GQ" and a men's version
of "Cosmopolitan."  The political writing is on a par with many liberal
magazines (including "Playboy" which - believe it or not - some men
actually =DO= buy for the articles :-) ), while the content ranges from
politics to fashions to personalities. There is probably less sexual
content to the average "Esquire" than there is in most "Cosmopolitan's."

    Even if these magazines were pure sleeze, however, I would still
support their publication. There is very little I find more
objectionable (or dangerous) than censorship. In the case of pure sleeze
it may seem sensible, or even desirable, but ultimately it leads to
restrictions on everyone. In the same manner, while I respect the
arguments of the feminist groups who oppose the objectification [sp?] of
women they perceive to be present in such magazines, I still oppose
their actions in attacking women who choose to model for them. The
implication that women are not capable of making these decisions for
themselves (or should not be permitted to make such decisions) is
entirely too close to the right-wing implication that women are not
capable of making decisions concerning abortion for my comfort.

    Peace,

    Rick

--

                       -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
            The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
      over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to
      prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is
      not a sufficient warrant.                         John Stuart Mill
                       -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
         Rick Adams -=*=- adamsr@ais.org -=*=- adamsr@norwich.bitnet
      anonymous users may send to anonymus+1693@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU