From: keithd@stallion.oz.au (Keith Duddy)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:12:55 GMT
Organization: Stallion Technologies

In <lfc6m5INNcv4@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:

>	Here I am sitting in my own home and an acquaintance comes over to
>get some homework that she missed.  She sees my Elle calendar next to
>my computer and asks why I have it.  

If it's the same calendar that we are being assailed with from every
newsagent and department store here in Australia then I'd ask the same
question... primarily because it's tasteless and ultimately rather
pointless.

>She goes on to tell me how that
>type of thing causes rape.  She has several friends and she knows it.

This may be too strong a position, I agree...

>Shit.  I asked her if she had any proof -- no, but she doesn't need it
>because she doesn't like feeling like she needs to look like some
>supermodel.  She tells me that guys look at things like that and
>toss off and then go rape women.  I mention to her that statistics of
>crime against women show a marked drop in crime where pornography and
>erotica are freely available  Of course she replies with the new
>feminist rebuttal "Well, I don't believe statistics."

Can you quote sources of these stats - or are they yet another one of
these mythical studies that shows something related to what you're
talking about and has been interpreted to make your point. Statistics
can be valuable, as long as the sample sizes are great enough, and the
method of collection is valid - in general I don't believe statistics
either - I see them only as an indicator to a trend Not a validation, or
refutation of a cause/effect relationship. Simply: correlation does not
equal causation.

>	I tried to ask her what she did believe in and only that her friends
>had been raped and she thought it was terrible.  But how did that relate
>to an Elle calendar?  Well, she didn't like it.  Shit.  I hate dealing
>with this type of bullshit.  

It sounds like you were dealing with someone who has a fairly 1/2 baked
idea of how things relate and possibly doesn't articulate what she does
know very well. I can understand that she is upset that her friend was
raped, I can also understand that the Elle calendar offends her, but I
don't see a direct connection either. Rather I see a vast network of
indirect connections.

>	She went on to say that she really disliked supermodels and what
>they do since all guys expect the women in their lives to look like
>the super models.  I don't feel this is the case with me or most guys
>I know, but hey, she knows it to be true because she is insecure about
>her looks and it has to be all these media pictures' fault and therefore
>the women who are in them and the men who buy them.  I am then held
>responsible for her insecurity and her behaviour.

When all (well at least many - and certainly Elle falls into this
category) of the images of women presented in the media are of skinny women
pointing their tits out at the presumed male audience (I posted a piece
on the "male gaze" a few weeks ago and unfortunately didn't get to
follow up as I went away for a while) then you have to ask what message
men and women are supposed to take from it. My best guess is that it's
closer to "You girls better get skinny and poke out your tits" to women,
and "This is what women should look like and behave like" to men than
"Everyone should accept people as more than a body, and a range of body
shapes and sizes can be sexy". By consuming this media, and refusing to
acknowledge that it sets up unrealistic expectations of women,
_regardless_ of your stated attitude to the women in your life, you are
contributing to the subtle, but powerful persecution of all the women
who don't fit these images. How can you at the same time pin Elle on
your wall, and claim that you are not contributing to the idealisation
of skinny-pointing-tits-out-to-men look/behaviour?

>	Of course it is all a plot of the patriarchy to subjugate women and
>undermine their power.  Yeah, right.

It's not a plot - it's a demonstration of the _real_ dominance men have
in shaping of stereotypes that the media pumps out to us as images to
aspire to. Damn right!

>*just grumbling*
>-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've seen this several times now and I've refrained from commenting -
but I really want to know if it says what I think it says; "Men continue
to dominate the employment market because they are superior workers AND
women are paid less because they deserve less - the 'Free Market" tells
us so!". What utter utter SHIT! (I can point out it's flaws at length if
you tell me that I have made an essentially correct paraphrase.)

Keith
---
\\\\\                                                                   /////
////                   keith duddy - slave to the rhythm                 \\\\
\\\  stallion technologies - 56 sylvan rd, toowong, qld 4066, australia   ///
//     ph              fx                 mail                 uunet       \\
\+61-7-870-4999  +61-7-371-8881  keithd@stallion.oz.au  uunet!staltec!keithd/

       ^^I write software for this company - not policy statements^^
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels