HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fletcher@rtf.bt.co.uk (Catherine Fletcher)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:03:55 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

stevenra@feserve.cc.purdue.edu (Alex Stevens) writes:
...
> to say about the opposite of what you inferred.  It's basically
> something to the effect of "if women make half of what guys make, why
> don't they all hire women, and cut salary costs in half???"
> 
> Calm down!
> Alex

Yes, of course that's what it is *saying*, but it is also *implying*
something because it is asking a question and leaving the reader to think
about the answer - which could be any of these:

1.  The statistic about women's salaries is not correct.

2.  The statistic is correct and no company has ever realised this simple
    way of making more money.

3.  The statistic is correct but no company wants to employ a purely female
    workforce.

Basically the question is supposed to be offensive to feminists.  It's 
implications: 

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. 

2.  Laugh at capitalism not taking advantage of exploitation where they
    can, after all, look at the rich individuals in those countries where 
    you can get away with child slave labour.
    
3.  Laugh at women.

This is what printing the quote and the quote itself implies on a very simple
level.  Keith Duddy has already explained what it implies on a slightly
more complex level, but that obviously went straight over Alex's head.

By the way, anyone who has the slightest grasp of what sexism is and doesn't
understand why an Elle calendar is offensive and harmful and a Chippendales
calendar isn't probably has no aptitude for complex thought - therefore I
am resorting to condescending insult rather than reasoned explanation.

-- 
 Catherine 
 _____________________________________________________________________________

    "Anyone who calls a spade a spade should be compelled to use one"
    Oscar Wilde
 _____________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: jim@neb (Jim Hood)
Subject: Please fix your subject lines!!!
Organization: Nebula - Public Access Unix/bbs SLC Ut, USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:14:43 GMT

Gads... Dosen't anyone know how to change their subject line!!!

Please adjust your subject lines (when replying to posts) to reflect
the current topic of your posting.

Thank you.

-jim
-- 
*****************************************************************************
*     Jim Hood     | mail/uucp: ..!uplherc.upl.com!neb!jim                  *
*    (alternate)   | mail/uucp: ..!uunet!hellgate.utah.edu!caeco!neb!jim    *
* For you @ people |               neb!jim@uplherc.upl.com                  *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*   Nebula - A Public Access Unix system/bbs  - Salt Lake City, Utah  USA   *
*   Public Node  (801)-572-4969    Telebit WorldBlazer  v.32/v.42bis/PEP    *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson -- Faint Praise 
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:20:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bxo840.9q6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>
>(Re bimbo ads.)
>
>>Seriously, though, what's the big deal.  Just ignore the ads.  If you're
>>mature enough and strong enough to care as much as you seem to, you ought to
>>be able to just ignore the ads without all that fuss.

>The same argument could be used to condone the racist depictions of 
>blacks, used in American advertising early in this century. It's a 
>similar case of media images being used to convey that only one body type
>is worthwhile.

  The analogy doesn't quite work.   

  The black images in popular advertising of the past were used
  in ads directed at the white majority.  Since most whites had
  little direct experience with blacks, and were probably prepared
  to accept an inferior image of blacks anyway, the ads found a
  receptive audience and thus tended to reinforce racist concepts
  of what blacks were like.

  But fashion ads are directed at those they caricature!!   Anyone
  who opens their eyes can see that real women don't look like
  fashion models, or dress like them, or lead the sort of glamorous
  or exotic lives that are often portrayed in Vogue or Elle.
  
  Why do so many people insist on thinking that what they see on
  TV and other media is more "real" than their own lives? 


---peter
From: Bill.Clint
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle Mac
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:12:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Federal, Milpitas, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: nest.ebay.sun.com


 ?In article 29018@acs.ucalgary.ca, panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca (Victor P. Panlilio) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.200044.29801@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>>"Experience" and "education" actually denote dimensions of
>>status in the hierarchies typical of bourgeois institutions.
>
>Ooohhh..."bourgeois"....I haven't seen *that* word around these
>parts before! (confessions of a relative newbie? not!)
>
>*shiver* *tingle* *quiver*
>
>>Consequently, to note that persons equally advanced in these
>>dimensions are equally compensated, regardless of gender,
>
>Translation into English: Men and women of high academic and
>professional achievement earn more or less similar incomes.
>
>*snicker*
>
>>seems vacuously tautological.  The interesting question is
>
>Spoken like a pedant suffering from a PC virus of the Marxian
>strain. Dense, opaque prose fit for obscure legal documents.
>
>Ho-hum. And I aced my Formal Logic for this kind of rubbish?
>
>;^)
>
>>how and whether status is achieved, which is what differs
>>per gender, not how well it is compensated, which evidently
>>does not.  
>
>The interesting question is how someone whose prose is as stuffy
>and dull as yours can even talk on the net or in the real world.
>
>And for those who wondered, the short answer to his question is
>
>Status is achieved in many ways. For some, by brute force. For
>others, by sly maneuvering. Some achieve status on the basis of
>physical appearance, others by mental agility. And so on and on.
>
>You, on the other hand, achieve your *dubious* status of village
>idiot by using quaint and *archaic* terminology to try to put on
>the appearance of intellectual sophistication. It doesn't work.
>
>(Rolling on the floor, laughing uncontrollably here...)
>
>Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha! *gasp* *wheeze* *cough* *groan*
>
>>When Ed comes back he'll go into the reasons for your not
>>observing this on your own.
>
>Ed? Who's Ed? Your big brother? What'll he do? Beat us up? 8^)
>
>(And to think that Saddam gave me a few extra Scud missiles, but
>I guess I'll have to move closer to New York to use them, eh?)
>
>Victor 8^)
>
>(note for the humor-impaired: take any or all of the above
>seriously at your own risk!)



WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT? 

This is alt.supermodels, right?
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: bprofane@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr)
Subject: Re: Madchen Amick
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:25:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.092043.5592@pixar.com> good@pixar.com ("You can't lose them all." -- Richard M. Nixon) writes:
>
>Those kinds of rumors show up fairly frequently where attractive, successful
>people are involved.  I've also heard them about Olivia Newton-John and
>Whitney Huston.  The rumors typically have the earmarks of urban legends: it's
>always a FOAF who read/heard/saw the interview.  

It is an accepted fact in the lesbian community that Whitney is a
lesbian.  The grapevine in the lesbian/gay community is amazingly
accurate, especially in distinguishing between who may be GLB and
who "everyone knows" is GLB.  I was amazed when I heard Whitney's
name, among others, in the latter category but I've never known the
scuttlebutt to be wrong in the long run.  The FOAF chains are
really short.

I think the original poster said it was an Advocate column that
mentioned Cindy necking with another woman.  Well, the Adovcate
hasn't been wrong yet.  Certainly her marriage to Gere was widely
assumed to be a beard for him at the time; maybe it was a beard for
her, too.

Not that anyone should give a fuck.

Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: nmurrayr@cc.curtin.edu.au (Ron Murray)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 12:27:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.150355.9849@rtf.bt.co.uk>, fletcher@rtf.bt.co.uk (Catherine Fletcher) writes:

 [Misquote from Farrell's "Why Men Are The Way They Are" deleted]

> Yes, of course that's what it is *saying*, but it is also *implying*
> something because it is asking a question and leaving the reader to think
> about the answer - which could be any of these:
> 
> 1.  The statistic about women's salaries is not correct.
> 
> 2.  The statistic is correct and no company has ever realised this simple
>     way of making more money.
> 
> 3.  The statistic is correct but no company wants to employ a purely female
>     workforce.

   Perhaps if you read the rest of the book (instead of what somebody *thought*
it said) you'd find which one is intended.

> By the way, anyone who has the slightest grasp of what sexism is and doesn't
> understand why an Elle calendar is offensive and harmful and a Chippendales
> calendar isn't probably has no aptitude for complex thought

   Ah yes. Who said males had a monopoly on double standards? Does the phrase
"cognitive dissonance" mean anything to you?

> - therefore I
> am resorting to condescending insult rather than reasoned explanation.

   Oh good. Let me know when you're about to start so I can get ready.

 .....Ron

-- 
                                 ***
 Ron Murray
 Internet: nmurrayr@cc.curtin.edu.au
     Are we having fun yet?    -- Garfield
Xref: sparky alt.supermodels:1766 soc.women:19463 alt.feminism:4297 soc.men:19195
From: blackbdj@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Dave Blackburn)
Subject: Re: Cindy.nude?
Organization: Aston University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:52:51 GMT

dcarter@supra.East.Sun.COM (Dave Carter-Sun-Atlanta GA-Atlanta District MCC) writes:
: She is nude in this months PLAYBOY issue, can see much though.
: A few other models in there, can't remember who off hand
: ---
:

Which issue is that?

Cheers

Dave
 
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Blackburn                                  Everything I say and wear may be
Dept. Comp Sci & App. Maths                     taken down and used against me.
Aston University                                blackbdj@uhura.aston.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:28:23 GMT

In article <johnr.721585353@ee.uts.EDU.AU> johnr@ee.uts.edu.au (John Reekie) writes:
>From: johnr@ee.uts.edu.au (John Reekie)
>Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
>Date: 12 Nov 92 16:22:33 GMT

>riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS) writes:

>>One things for certain, whilst I'm as confident as I want to be, I 
>>certainly would not date a man with an Elle MacPherson calandar on his 
>>wall! Now, a Paul Klee calandar is different (and for the culturally 
>>unenlightened, he is not a member of the Chippendales!!!!)   

>I do not have an Elle PacPherson calendar on my wall. I would
>like to, but I do not, because it would upset my girlfriend. Does that make
>me a Dateable Man or a Nondateable Man?

>John

If you have a girlfriend, then definately undateable!!!!!!!
From: egilmour@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: Re:  Elle McPherson causes rape?  (not!)
Date: 4 Nov 92 20:51:15 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In "Re: Elle McPherson causes Rape" the writer expressed some anti-feminist 
views that I take issue with.  I don't know if I'm the only woman who takes
part in this newsgroup but I think it is wrong to complain about feminist issues
in this group.  If you want to start comiserating about your 
hatred towards feminists perhaps you should start your own group. 

Although I think it is wrong to say that a sexy calendar causes rape, perhaps it
may be true that this material objectifies women to the point that men see 
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?
Instead of being so reactionary about a serious comment - I mean the girl really
believes her friends were raped because of these pictures - perhaps one should 
be more sensitive to their friends comments and concerns!  I think a person
is pretty sick in the first place if they are going to rape someone, but I
have read court transcripts where men have stated that they often fantasize 
over nude photos and when they see a defenseless girl in tight jeans, they 
think they can just help themselves.  

But really, if a person rapes a woman they probably have more serious 
problems that are caused by more than having pictures of beautiful women 
around.  Remember, rape is not a sex crime, it is a crime of violence.
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:33:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.185606.7713@dragon.acadiau.ca> 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
>lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov7.170150.12610@dragon.acadiau.ca> 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
>>>kytan@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan) writes:
>>>peroxide/dye, killer coloured nails). It *does* bother me that what society
>>                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>has governed to be beautiful is put up on a wall. Unrealistic objectification.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>My 2 cents on a cloudy saturday in Nova Scotia.
>>So shall we tear down the L'ouevre next week?...
>
>>Sorry, but either you're not expressing yourself well, or you're being most
>
>>illogical about one particular form of artwork.
>
>
>Rich, can't you see the vast difference between art and advertising?

Yes.  So, you didn't really mean exactly what you said [as I suspected].
But, I still am not in complete agreement.  Where do you draw the line between
ads and art?  Is Playboy advertising?  And who draws the lines?  And on what
legal basis (in US) can you draw them?


>1. The goal of art is not to sell some product (other than the art itself)
>2. Advertising is so extremely pervasive in today's North American society. I
>cannot go a day without seeing a plug for some product (try as I might).

Art is just as pervasive.  I can't go a single day and not see some work of
art.


>If these two factors were not involved and advertising refelected the artistic
>notions of individuals, then I would consider it art. Unfortuneately, if these
>two factors were removed, then it would no longer be considered advertising.
>
>I realize that advertising reflects the work of so-called 'artists', but such
>people are merely the puppets of corporations. 

Some of them are damn good artists.  [No quotes is intentional.]
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:08:07 GMT

891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:

>lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>>In article <1992Nov7.171259.13356@dragon.acadiau.ca> 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
>>>aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
>>>
Just for the record..this is the third time I have seen my name being attributed
to nothing.. I am not sure how I got into the middle of this discussion..

>>{sarcasm on}
>>Oh, my, yes.  Almost as bad as those professional atheletes.  Horror, horror.
>>{sarcasm off}

This is not mine..

al

-- 
Al Aldrich	inet:aaldrich@encore.com
"..if you understood everything I said, you'd be me." miles davis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MY opinions are not to be construed as those of my employer.
From: ken@batman.austin.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: Re: Cindy.nude?
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:12:39 GMT
Reply-To: ken@austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Austin

#Could someone please mail me some of the above mentioned pics?
#I've never seen a really nude pic of Cindy C.
#Thanx
#Gandalf 

Or better yet post?!

Speaking of which, what happened to the cindyc.gif GIF?
It can't be found on the ftp servers.


=============================================================
THIS POSTING DOES NOT REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF MY EMPLOYERS.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"The killer awoke before dawn, he put his clown shoes on, and
             he ... flopped on down the hall..."
=============================================================
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: differing wages (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:13:31 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

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
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:21:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.171526.5511@wam.umd.edu> sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
[opps, reference deleted my mistake, forgive me (or check the references line)]
>>	Duh.  Women are used as 'model's on which to hang products that
>>are sold.  Also, models are looked at for their own sake -- just as
>>you can buy calendars of cars for their own sake.  Nothing is being sold
>>except the vision of the car (or women) itself.
>>
>>-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
>
>One problem: Cars are inanimate objects that cant feel hurt.  

With you so far...

>Women are thinkingfeeling human beings who are psychologically hurt being 
>USED like a hunk of metal to sell a product.  

RASH generalization alert. (I like that one :^)

I am sure they cry all the way to the bank. No doubt Farrah Facwett (sp?)
has had to be institutionalized by now.

The alternative is that this is an ego trip which bolsters their self
confidence, and re-inforces their feeling of self-worth, and pays well.
Naaa...

>                     Women may be partially responsible for their mental
>health in this matter as suggested by the person who claimed it was all
>a self-esteem problem.  

Women are -victims-, get it straight, you are guilty of blaming the victim.

>                          Okay.  By the same line of reasoning I cant blaim
>someone who hurts me by punching me in my mouth.  

What an incredibly valid comparison, adevrtising and a punch in the mouth.
No wonder the women all have perfect teeth, dental reconstruction! :^)

>                                               Afterall, it is partially
>my responsibility for not blocking the blow and striking back.  If Im not
>in good enough shape to ward off attack I guess it is still my fault.

A short post, and he's babbling already. <sigh>

>I could have had let other things I value in my life go while I worked out
>to prepare for being attacked.  Why should I blame the person who struck
>me?  Enough of the sarcasm.  Do you see what Im saying.  

Yes, I often say, "what is the point of exagerating a little bit". Indeed,
what is the point of a short babble. :^)

>                                                           People are hurt
>by having society being programmed to expect others to live up to an ideal
>image.  Just because someone may have the capacity to help themselves in
>the face of an injustice doesnt make the injustice less of an injustice.

I have other problems with advertising, so I will not defend it. But I
think all the points you raised are not only incorrect, but that you have
been brainwashed. You have to read less propaganda. Read the romance novels,
that's the ticket!  :^)
 
>Steve R
>

Rich

payner@netcom.com



Xref: sparky alt.supermodels:1573 soc.women:19016 alt.feminism:3889 soc.men:18828
From: 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:12:59 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:

>>In article  891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:

>al

They've been selling an unrealistic notion of women for years. 

Something bothers me more than men having these women on the walls, for part
of me feels that the average man is as big a victim as the women in this whole
game. (THink about the difficulties that men who go against the grain of 
thought must endure) It's the women who accept money for *posing* and making
a ten year (approx) career out of something that is not only unhealthy for
the general population of women, but for they themselves when their career is
kaput.

A thread of discussion I haven't seen yet. Am I out of line?

Trish

-- 
Trying to help make a better world in which to live for ALL -who try to help
'even a blind man knows when the sun is shining'
NAMESGALORE-ANONYMOUS:Tish=Kermit=Herb=TR.=Spice=Pecute=FISHIE.FISHIE.FISHIE
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels