From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:20:34 GMT

In <Bx9K6F.Gu1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
>kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:

>Not everyone is bothered by such things.  Many people *would* find it
>uncomfortable; that is why it is "wrong".
Anything could make someone uncomfortable.  I don't find that a compelling
reason to ban everything.

>>	This also seems to be a pretty narrow view of people.  Do you really
>>think that the fact that a women puts up a Chip & Dale's calender says 
>>anything about what she thinks of you as an individual?

>Ditto above.

Try a little bit of reading comprehension.

>I read a paper about the obstacles that women face in Computer Science and
>Engineering (mostly CS, maybe all of it was CS).  A large section (or two) was
>dedicated to sexual harassment, mostly "soft" unintentional stuff.  (Stuff not
>done specifically to make women uncomfortable, but which causes that as an
>obvious side effect.)
I believe I know the paper you are referring to.  Why are There so Few Women
in Computer Science, by Ellen Spertus.  I suggest people read, but with open
eyes.  Objecticity is not one of its strong points.
>  One woman paraphrased in the study described a situation
>where she and other female coworkers were annoyed at the pin-up calendars
>displayed by the male workers in *obvious* places.  I believe their solution
>was to post their own similar material right next to it (or in similar 
>places):
>The men got the hint and took their stuff down.  (I think they *did* complain
>first, getting a "what's the harm" response.)
I am not sure what the hint was.  I would guess that the mens reaction was
more homophobic than offense at the way men were being objectified.  As such,
it hardly represents a step forward.  Additionally, the "harm" has still not
been explained, and no effort has been made to show that if the "harm" did
exist, it outweighs everything else.

>I have no problem with what you or anyone else owns for your amusement.  The
>problem comes when you display things that would "obviously" make other people
>uncomfortable in areas that they can not be expected to avoid.  Posting a KKK
>calendar (if they make such things) in a publicly visible area would make
>members of most minorities rather uncomfortable.  That is wrong.  Even if you
>aren't "really" racist, to display such material *says* that you are and can 
>be intimidating to minorities.  Similarly for you to display your SI Swim Suit
>Calendar on the wall behind your desk, or on the wall of your alcove, or
>whatever you have, *says* that you value women for their bodies and that will
>make women uncomfortable.  (not everyone will care, but some surely will)
>Ditto for a woman displaying a Chip & Dale's Calendar, which would make (some)
>men uncomfortable.
You seem to have completely missed this point, so let me repeat the question:
>>	This also seems to be a pretty narrow view of people.  Do you really
>>think that the fact that a women puts up a Chip & Dale's calender says 
>>anything about what she thinks of you as an individual?

>If you have to have your SI calendar at work, try putting it someplace that
>won't force it on anyone who walks by or who comes to talk to you (about work).
That would completely void the purpose of getting the calender in the first
place.  Be carefull with your assumptions, as many might not apply to my
environment.
Ken
Xref: sparky soc.women:19369 alt.feminism:4222 soc.men:19118