HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rji@nyquist.cs.nott.ac.uk (Rob Ingram)
Subject: Re: differing wages (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Communications Research Group
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 13:00:21 GMT

In article <lfqilrINN973@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov6.150355.9849@rtf.bt.co.uk> fletcher@rtf.bt.co.uk (Catherine Fletcher) writes:
|> >1.  Doubt (by the word "if") one of the few statistics that it is safe to
|> >    "believe" because the information it contains is straightforward
|> >    and easy to obtain from accurate and diverse sources. 
|> ---
|> 	But the statistic is meaningless.  It ignores factors of
|> seniority, job type and hours worked/week.  I might as well say something
|> along the lines of 'did you know people under the age of 18 get an
|> average of 20 cents to every dollar an adult gets' and then try to
|> use this as some meaningful statistic on how minors are discriminated
|> against.  Plugh!
|> 
|> -wat-
|> --
|>  --- "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

I think this was an important part of the quote.

			Rob.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
|                       | Rob Ingram                                          |
|  By request.          | University of Nottingham                            |
|  Englands Finest.     | Department of Computer Science                      |
|                       | Nottingham, UK.                                     |
|_______________________|_____________________________________________________|
|                       |      "Women: Can't live with 'em, can't get them    |
|  rji@cs.nott.ac.uk    |       to dress in skimpy leather Nazi outfits"      |
|_______________________|_____________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: rrg@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (Rafael Rodriguez)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: FAQ's
Date: 12 Nov 1992 18:51:26 +1100
Organization: University of Melbourne
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au

Hi,
I am new to this list and I would like to know if there is any
FAQ list.

If ther isn't a FAQ list. Could any one tell me if there is any
FTP site with good GIF's of Paulina Porizkowa?

Thanks

Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: jailbird@ddsw1.mcs.com (Ron D. Harvey, Professional Bachelor)
Subject: Re:  Elle McPherson causes rape?  (not!)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:13:24 GMT
Organization: Evil, Inc.

From article <1992Nov5.031114.6589@wam.umd.edu>, by crh@wam.umd.edu (Craig Hinners):
> In article <1992Nov4.205115.8628@ac.dal.ca> egilmour@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>women as existing only for the purpose of being possessed by men.  You do 
>>possess Elle with your eyes when you look at her right?
> 
> Bzzzzzzt.  Wrong.  Fallacy in logic!  Remember:  "The symbol is not the 
> thing symbolized."  You are "possessed" by the series of ink blots on a piece
> of paper, not the real Elle.  When you burn a flag, you are burning a piece
> of cloth, not the United States, hence the reason flag burning is legal, a
> right I'm sure you'd be quick to support.
> 
> craig


	I love it when this happens: some logic-maniac believes it's 
fair game to call someone on a "[f]allacy in logic" when discussing an 
emotional topic.  

	Craig obviously doesn't get it, or he just doesn't have any 
emotional capacity.  Symbols can be powerful things, be it flags, Elle
(I thing Elle's a dog, but that's just my opinion), bikinis, or
pocket protectors.  I've heard plenty of men and women who think that
so-and-so "embodies" womanhood (or manhood, for that matter).  That's
why they're supermodels; they make tons of money and set the standards
for beauty.

	You can deny the symbols exist, but you can't stop other people 
from recognizing or responding to them.  You can be smug and say they're 
stoopid, but that doesn't do anything except demonstrate your smugness.
(But I'll bet you think computers are "neat."  Hey, they're just boxes
crammed with electronics.)

	And where's the logic in masturbating over a "series of ink blots 
on a piece of paper"?  Does ink turn you on?

-- 
Ron D. Harvey	jailbird@ddsw1.mcs.com 

"Sorry, wrong number.  Cute answering machine message, though."  >click<
Xref: sparky alt.supermodels:1726 soc.women:19372 alt.feminism:4224 soc.men:19120
From: cor@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Cory Shimer)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Supermodels contribute to spiraling low self esteem?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 01:19:45 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu


Hmm.

More than likely.

If someone makes you feel relatively unattractive by what they say
or do, and then you happen to see some poster of some supermodel...

The problem with low self esteem is that it self propagates.

The less attractive you feel, the less attractive you probably become
(from a personality standpoint, and perhaps from a physical standpoint
if it causes you to neglect your appearance), which makes it more likely 
that people will do or say things that mkae you feel less attractive.

The problem is that society contribumtes to this.

Even if you are feeling good about yourself, some asshole
can come along and start the downward spiral of self esteem.

For this reason I have a small problem with the person who posted
that people should just express how they feel at any given moment and not 
worry about hurting other people. 

It's not the supermodels themselves that can contribute to this, but
the way society lifts them up as a comparison standard.

Think twice before being an asshole, you might just be affecting
someones life.

--- 


Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: pcg@panix.com (Paul Gallagher)
Subject: Re: What is with some of these models we see today?
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:33:02 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Nov4.125551.8610@ac.dal.ca> egilmour@ac.dal.ca writes:

>I would like to know what is going on with the modelling agencies and all of the
>decidedly ugly models that are appearing in Vogue and on the runways these days.
>I was always told that models needed certain attributes if they were to be 
>successful.  But what about Giselle, Kristen McMenemy, and Linda Evangelista?  
>They have some terribly ugly faults, and I thought models were supposed to be
>virtually faultless.  I know that there has been a trend toward more 
>untraditional looks, but when you see someone like Giselle, who looks terrible 
>in some of the recent ads in Vogue, it makes me think that perhaps just anybody 
>can get into modelling these days.  

>I think Vogue should look toward the newer faces such as Helena Christiansen
>Beverly Peele, and Niki Taylor.  And lets see more Christy Turlington, I think
>she is the best Supermodel today.

This is an interesting article.  I remember being very surprised the first
time I saw a picture of Gisele.. and kind of pleased that ugly girls can get
to be supermodels too :)  
Advertisements and fashion shows are meant to sell clothes and cosmetics, of
course, so I suppose it makes sense to promote models as celebrities rather
than just always featuring the most attractive women.  
	Also, fashion ads are directed at women, mostly.  I have noticed some
women have very different ideas about feminine beauty than I do.  There
is the concept of "jolie laide": people like Paloma Picasso or Georgette
Mosbacher are admired for their style, especially by other women, even
though I, a typical male, probably, find them very unattractive.
	You mention Helena C., Beverly Peele, Niki, and Christy.  I agree
they are astonishingly pretty, but there's more to beauty than being
pretty.  There's room for sophisticated-looking Linda, slutty-looking
Kristen McMenamy, and weird-looking Gisele...
	Also, models are the creations of photography, in a way.  For
example, Steven Meisel claims credit for creating Linda Evangelista,
correcting her "wide nose, full cheeks, and weak chin" through makeup and
lighting, cutting off her hair, and otherwise altering her image, according
to an article in the March 1992 Allure.  For example, she would pose with
mouth slightly open, biting the insides of her cheeks, to give her face a
thinner, more angular appearance.  She would "thrust both hips forward,
shooting one hip out to the side, and balancing her legs one behind the
other," as well as wrapping her breasts with gaffer's tape, all in order to
give the appearance of a more curvy figure with a tiny waist.
	It seems likely, that if the beauty of the photograph of the model
is the product of so much artifice, photos of the model taken by other
photographers without such efforts might be much less impressive.


Paul
pcg@panix.com
From: dcarter@supra.East.Sun.COM (Dave Carter-Sun-Atlanta GA-Atlanta District MCC)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: Re: Cindy.nude?
Date: 9 Nov 1992 16:54:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dcarter@supra.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: supra.east.sun.com

She is nude in this months PLAYBOY issue, can see much though.
A few other models in there, can't remember who off hand
---

=======================================================================
ATLANTA BRAVES: 1991 & 1992 National League CHAMPIONS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
========================================================================
David Carter                              SUN MICROSYSTEMS
david.carter@East                         115 Perimeter Center Place NE.
404-901-6964                              Suite 850
MCC                                       Atlanta, GA  30346
========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Acadia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:00:57 GMT

krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:

>In article <KYTAN.92Nov5103431@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com> kytan@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.134127.11971@cs.nott.ac.uk> rji@tuck.cs.nott.ac.uk (Rob Ingram) writes:
>>
>>			   Rob Ingram
>>			   University of Nottingham
>>
>>I disagree.  Whether the possession of calendar featuring a supermodel (or
>>anything else) suggests that someone would like all females to be like that is
>>not the point.  If any woman blames others for her insecurities, then it is
>>totally HER problem.  
>>
>AMEN!

No. I disagree with that. If a person is constantly told that they are not smart
not thin enough..etc etc that person ultimately develops (unless
you can totally block it out, become untrusting, a poor listener and generally
more cold hearted) some sort of insecurity.

The same goes for the idea(l)s reinforced in today's society by advertising,
fashion, tv/movies. Advertising is especially the worst- we are constantly
told what is wrong with us. Hell, I didn't even know what 'ring around the 
collar' was until I saw an ad saying to watch out for its evil presence. 
Ads targetted at women are constantly trying to make us want to strive for
the unattainable body, face, hair, legs .... We see pictures of the so-called
perfect bodies- a 5% population of women whose pictures are air-brushed to
eradicate any 'flaw' and after seeing thousands upon thousands of such photos,
women look at themselves in the mirror and feel that they can't compare.
But the ads tell us we can do it. Don't stop striving. Buy this new x and it
will help.

Bullshit.

I want to see a real woman.
Did you know that women has hair under her arms that grows- just like men?
Women also have it on their legs.
Women burp and fart and take big shits in the toilet.
Women get bags under their eyes when they are tired.
 "    have bad breath in the morning.
 "  can have any sized/shaped breast, bum, leg, nose, lip, ear...

The fact is we see *one-type* of women portrayed everywhere as the idealized
women and even this isn't a real type for she is subjected to hours of makeup
and airbrushing before she goes in front of the camera. The majority of women
don't see themselves reflected in society at all. How many models have you  
seen with crooked teeth?

The message we're fed is that
we should be that *type* of person for she is BEAUTY and this keeps women 
striving and feeling inadequate for she can never be air-brushed nor part of
the unrealistic (and socially constructed) 5%. 

Trish

-- 
=-=-=--===-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-----=-=-=-==========-=------------==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Trying to help make a better world in which to live for ALL    
who try to help make a better world in which to live for ALL 
who try... /////////////////////'even a blind man knows when the sun is shining'
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:20:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov5.205232.3707@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.202426.29752@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>>
>>This super-slim fashion model trend had its advent in the sixties with Twiggy,
>>and then just sorta' "stuck".  I think that part of the reason for the success
>>of this trend is that the clothing designers have an easier time displaying
>>their designs to best advantage on skinnier (flatter) women, simply because
>>they have less of the curves that might otherwise affect the shape of the
>>garment as worn.  This applies a bit less so to swimwear models.  The downside
>
>Not true, you're just making that up as you go along.
>

If you believe that I am making this up as I go, then pray tell, what do
_you_ think is thr "real deal"?

Keith R
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: cs911030@ariel.yorku.ca (STAVROS TSOKOS)
Subject: JPG viewer?
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:28:38 GMT

Hi,

     I see alot jpg files posted, is there somewhere I can get a JPG viewer (FTP
site or anywhere else)?  

Thanks,

Steve


Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: crh@wam.umd.edu (Craig Hinners)
Subject: Re:  Elle McPherson causes rape?  (not!)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:11:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.205115.8628@ac.dal.ca> egilmour@ac.dal.ca writes:
>women as existing only for the purpose of being possessed by men.  You do 
>possess Elle with your eyes when you look at her right?

Bzzzzzzt.  Wrong.  Fallacy in logic!  Remember:  "The symbol is not the 
thing symbolized."  You are "possessed" by the series of ink blots on a piece
of paper, not the real Elle.  When you burn a flag, you are burning a piece
of cloth, not the United States, hence the reason flag burning is legal, a
right I'm sure you'd be quick to support.

craig


Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca (Victor P. Panlilio)
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Summary: What to do with an extra $900?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 06:21:22 GMT
Expires: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 05:00:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
Keywords: money matters
Followup-To: alt.supermodels

In article <9NOV199210165558@mary.fordham.edu> nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:

>Here are the *new* statistics (from the November 1992 issue of "Notices of 
>the American Mathematical Society"):

Statistics. Hmm. Bummer. "We sold 100% more product this year
than last year." Translation: Last year we sold one ton. This
year we sold two tons!" (Of course, *this* would be extremely
significant if we were talking about, say, cocaine, right?)

8^)

>9-month academic salaries of people with new Ph.D.'s in mathematics:
>(`new' means granted during the 1991/92 academic year) 
>Median salary for men----$34,000  (interquartile range--31,000 to 36,000)
>Median salary for women--$34,900  (interquartile range--33,000 to 37,100)
>Note that women earn over $1.02 for each $1 earned per man.  

Gee, does this mean they can buy more Chippendale calendars than
male math PhD's can buy Elle calendars? Just how many Chippendale
calendars will $900 buy, anyway? And what on earth could women
find fascinating in looking at pictures of those seminude men?

*evil snicker*

Victor 8^)
(sorry, I couldn't resist....)
From: 2760carpente@vms.csd.mu.edu (METALLICA)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: Help!!! Repost Paulina.gif
Date: 6 Nov 1992 16:02:45 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 2760carpente@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

Hi...  Could somebody possibly repost the PAULINA gif as the server here 
deleted it before I could download.  Please post..  Thanks
Vin
 __    ___ __   ___   __    
   \     /   |     \    | Vinny Carpenter            | Judge not unless you
    \   /    |      \   | 2760Carpente@vms.csd.mu.edu| be judge yourself,
       /     |    |  \  | P.O.Box 93863              | Holier than thou, you
      /      |    |     | Milwaukee, WI 53233        | know NOT!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             METALLICA IS GOD
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: Supermodels contribute to spiraling low self esteem?
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:20:22 GMT

In article <1dsbfhINN8hi@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, cor@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Cory Shimer) writes:
> If someone makes you feel relatively unattractive by what they say
> or do, and then you happen to see some poster of some supermodel...

> The problem with low self esteem is that it self propagates.

No, the problem is with the notion that someone can "make" you feel
one way or the other.  In the absence of violence or other overt
coercion, you are responsible for your own mental state.

The problem is with the notion that self esteem depends on how you
perceive others rate your attractiveness.   Self esteem might just
as well depend on personal characteristics like integrity and learned
capabilities as on appearance -- things YOU can control.   Since you're
the one doing the "esteeming", why not set the criteria to suit yourself?
  
> The less attractive you feel, the less attractive you probably become
> (from a personality standpoint, and perhaps from a physical standpoint
> if it causes you to neglect your appearance), which makes it more likely 
> that people will do or say things that mkae you feel less attractive.

There you go again, saying that other people can "make" you feel more
or less attractive.  It's said that the ability to achieve depends on
self-esteem but some of us think this is backwards(poor Henry James!)

Perhaps if you quit worrying about the self-esteem and concentrate on
what you want to achieve then the self-esteem will follow ?

The problem with the self-esteem game is that it has trouble 
bootstrap-loading itself.  But it sure sells self-help books!

> The problem is that society contributes to this.

Yes, it's certainly society's fault if I feel crummy about myself.


> Even if you are feeling good about yourself, some asshole
> can come along and start the downward spiral of self esteem.
  
Perhaps the solution to this is to take responsibility for yourself
and how you feel?
                                                                       

> Think twice before being an asshole, you might just be affecting
> someones life.

I thought the whole point of social interaction was to affect other
people's lives, and let them affect yours ... but really, you're
absolutely correct. Why, if I tell someone about that egg on the chin 
that just might start that nasty downward spiral and, who knows, in
a few years they might just ... kill themselves !!!!

It must be really tough, taking responsibility for so many other people.

Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: cbh023@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Nick Curtis)
Subject: gifs : How to convert?
Organization: Coventry University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 12:16:36 GMT

How do I convert a gif so that I can see them???

Cheers, Nick.
-- 

Name: Nick Curtis .                                       | Sorry Newcastle
Email: cbh023@uk.ac.cov.cch .... or cbh023@uk.ac.cov.cck  | but Wolves will be
'Has anybody got any vera's ? Lovely !!!!!'               | Champions !!!!!!!
From: Matthew Hall <mjhall@socs.uts.edu.au>
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: Re: eleniak.gif (part 1/1)
Date: 11 Nov 1992 04:08:28 GMT
Organization: UTS Microcomputer Shop
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: microshop-04.ccsd.uts.edu.au
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
X-XXMessage-ID: <A726D2C94C012404@microshop-04.ccsd.uts.edu.au>
X-XXDate: Wed, 11 Nov 92 15:10:01 GMT

In article <BxFG6M.4y0@unccsun.uncc.edu> Sneh Ctuh,  writes:

>Outstanding pic.
Hear hear

>You did it the right way.  Now lets see more.
Please.....
--
"Since I can never see your face,      | Matthew Hall  mjhall@socs.uts.EDU.AU
   And never shake you by the hand,    |     Apple Student Representative
 I send my soul through time and space |   University of Technology, Sydney
   To greet you. You will understand." | phone ++6123302466  fax ++6123302475
                  -James Elroy Flecker |   CompSci undergrd  "Eddie" - RHPS
Xref: sparky alt.supermodels:1507 soc.women:18812 alt.feminism:3683 soc.men:18642
From: 9104992@sunvax.sun.ac.za (Dirk)
Subject: Elle Wanted - Alive
Organization: Disorganized...
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:50:11 GMT

Could someone just mail me a pic of Elle please.... I've heard so much,
but seen so little...
Thanx
Dirk
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels