From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Football: Robert Sheaffer's Central Metaphor?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 20:17:15 GMT

In article <michael.724959905@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>In <1992Dec20.203514.7086@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <michael.724789235@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>>>In <1992Dec18.193705.12869@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec16.232603.3881@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>>>>	Women in football? Always as cheerleaders, who are usually
>>>>>scantily clad sex objects. They are not really important to the game,
>>>>>it must be said. I personally have nothing against exhibitionism in
>>>>>principle, just against exploitation.
>>>>Yes, a well-paid female actress (for that is what these are), having
>>>>an exciting, fast-paced life and undoubtedly dozens of highly attractive
>>>>suitors, is *exploited* something fierce. We've got to make them stop
>>>>doing this, for their own good. Frankly, I think they should
>>>>all be forced to wear the chador (sp?), like the cheerleaders at
>>>>Teheran State U.
>>>Personally I don't care whether men or women are dressed scantily
>>>or in sexually provocative ways.  I don't care if men or women do
>>>strip acts on stage.  I don't care if men or women appear partially
>>>clothed or complete nude in magazines.  If those men and women choose
>>>to do so for money, that is THEIR decision and not anyone elses to
>>>object to.
>>>
>>>If however our culture leaves men or women with no other choice than
>>>to do these things for money AND these acts invade the actors
>>>privacy or cause psychological harm, 
>>                  ------------------
>>By who's determination? If the strippers do not object, but others
>>do, what then? 
>
>Well, abused victims don't always object either.  

The subject is not "abused victims". Or are you defining strippers
as "abused victims"? And "psychological harm" is a nebulous, easily
faked condition. A few acting lessons, and away we go. 

>                                                     Obviously the
>government is going to have to step in and make a determination.

Sorry, LAWYERS will step in, and make the determinations, and we will
all pay, and pay, and pay...  Tell me which social problems the government
has fixed in the past? Given that (long term) their solutions are often
worse than the problems, I'd say that the only sure way to foul things up
is by government involvment. Even if there was no problem (and I think
that this is the case), government involvment will create one.

>Since they can't do so in EVERY case, we are left with a similar
>problem as that of abuse victims.  

We are not talking about "abused victims", and you have not shown any
sort of parallel case.

>Its a tricky situation to deal with.

Or a non-situation looking for justification and escalation.

>The best I know at this point is to create agencies that can help
>victims find their way out of their mess and to make the victims
>aware of that possibility.

What victimization are you referring to, specifically?
 
>As for solving the root of the problem...  That's much more difficult.
>I'm afraid I don't have an answer for that now.

I'm reminded of a certain discussion where one of the most pressing
problems of the day was hotly debated, the dreaded "pornography 
imbalance" (tm). 
 
>However banning all erotica because there are bad people who abuse others
>in creating erotica is like saying some people say things that are harmful
>so lets ban free speech.  Oh its not the SAME thing exactly, but the point
>I'm trying to make is clear I think?

No, not really. 
 
>>>                                        then I think we need to take
>>>a look at our system and fix the problem.  
>>Who is "we", and how would such a problem be fixed? If you have spent
>>20 years as a stripper, and have no other talents, todays job market 
>>will be unlikely to treat you kindly. Anyone with no job skills will
>>have the same problem however.
>
>Yes, this problem is not limited to strippers.  

Like most of our youth? (lack of job skills that is) And it is not
a given that strippers lack job skills. I bet stripping pays more 
than most day jobs. 

>                                               Its a broader problem.
>In a sense its fallout from not having dealt with the central issue
>sooner.  But the answer to this problem is the same with anyone who
>has no skills.  We need to find a way to train them without making such
>a process a huge burden on society.  There are solutions to that, but
>none of them are easy ones.
> 
>>>                                         So long as these things are
>>>done by free choice, it is not exploitation.
>>Not according to some oft-quoted feminists.
>
>So?  What I've said is my opinion.  Any feminists who disagree are
>certainly entitled to their opinion as well.  And I'd lay odds that
>not all feminists think that.

So you have some insight into the minds of most(?) (from "not all") feminists?
Why not share this insight with us?
 
>>>I will however object to kids in pornography.  
>
>>>                                               I also object to the
>>>way women are often portrayed in erotica as helpless or mindless.
>>>I enjoy seeing strong women every bit as often as helpless women.
>>>Frankly I get pretty damn tired of seeing helpless women waiting on
>>>men.
>
>>But strong women are not often portrayed as having relationships,
>>or choosing to do things for men. In fact, the strong women that I
>>recall on TV are full of clever rejoinders and always beat the cheating
>>men at their own game. There are some exceptions, but I stress the
>>word exception.
>
>Are you suprised?  I would think that beating men at their own game
>would appeal to many women.  And if strong women are portrayed as having
>relationships, then that is a big mistake by our media.  I'd love to
>see that happen more often.

Well, many "real feminists" (c) are not "beating men at their own game",
they are definig the game as wrong, and merely blaming men. 
 
>    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism