From: bickis@skmath3.pa.dec.com (M. Bickis)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: pin-ups
Date: 11 Sep 1992 16:29:07 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <lasmdrINN1sc@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM 
(Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes in reply to me:
>[Mik:]   Seriously, a woman's best defence against such
> harassment is to refuse to identify herself with the subjects of such
> pictures. 
>
>[Dan:] IMO, this allows any offensive material to be displayed
>with the injunction, don't look if it offends you. 

That's right.  And that's the way it should be in a free and open society that
does not condone censorship.  Pinups are only one of many things that
offend me, and some of the things that offend me might be things that
you strongly believe it is your right to promote.

>This in turn seems to say that there is no inherent value or
>value judgment associated with anything put up for public
>display. This may make sense in a metaphysical sense but
>not in a real-world sense.

Quite the opposite (if I understand correctly).  *Metaphysically* I
believe that things *do* have inherent value, but pragmatically, what
right do I have to pretend that *I* have privileged knowledge of that
value?  

>If we agree that words and other symbology have power,
>e.g, "fighting words", then a response whether positive
>or negative also has power, and it becomes a valid issue
>over what is permissible in the worplace/public, etc.

It becomes a valid *issue* but not with an obvious resolution.  Free
expression does have bounds, and those bounds are circumscribed by
what is socially acceptable.  In a liberal society, those bounds should
be as loose as is consistent with preservation of order.  Before I would
even *consider* banning something as offensive, I would want to see
proof that there was malicious intent to offend.

>Speculation as to why something offensive is displayed
>is beside the point; otherwise, something generally
>deemed offensive could be displayed as long as the 
>displayer had "valid reasons". This kind of logic would
>excuse almost any sort of behavior.

This kind of excuse has been used (often succesfully) by defenders of
people such as D. H. Lawrence and R. Mapplethorpe.  If one does not
admit "this kind of logic" much of feminist writing would be disallowed.

>[Mik:] Although I take a dim view of pinups in the workplace, I don't think
> anyone has the right to ban them.  I think people should be free to
> put up whatever decor they like in their private space.  Public places,
> of course, are a different matter, and any employer has the right to
> insist that all displays are consistent with their corporate image.
>
>[Dan:] I don't see how sentence (2) jibes with sentence (3): they
>sound contradictory.
>
>If a space is indeed private, than there is no one to view
>offensive material unless invited in, and of course they may
>leave; this is not true of the workplace.

Sentence (2) refers to places like my office, (or my cubicle). It is part
of the workplace, although it is private in the sense that I have
privileged access to it.  Sentence (3) refers to places where the public
is normally admitted without any explicit invitation, such as a
reception area. 


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@math.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.