From: jte@beefheart.cc.columbia.edu (Jeff Eldredge)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: Re: Calendars and Brains
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:44:06 GMT
Reply-To: jte@beefheart.cc.columbia.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Columbia University

In article <92Nov21.190148.23446@acs.ucalgary.ca> panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca  
(Victor P. Panlilio) writes:
> In article <1992Nov20.232337.11649@news.columbia.edu>  
jte@beefheart.cc.columbia.edu writes:
> >In article <92Nov19.171655.18822@acs.ucalgary.ca>  
panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca  
> >(Victor P. Panlilio) writes:
> >> Most Americans have probably never even heard of Cindy Crawford,
> >> and mainstream USA is really not represented by the cultural and
> >> intellectual snobs who study at Columbia or other institutions of
> 
> >I make no pretense about my personal knowledge of Canadian life, but I  
can  
> >safely say that residing in the city of New York (where I happen to  
work  
> >for the "elitist" institution called Columbia University) puts me a  
little  
> >closer to American culture than whatever it is that you're doing up  
> >yonder.
> >
> >Your argument falls to pieces here.  You're out of touch.
> 
> Oh by the way, did I mention that for graduate school,
> 
> my oldest sister attended Duke (applied math)
> my other sister attended Case (operations research)
> my sister-in-law attended Cornell (molecular biology)
> 

Excellent rundown on your family history, but aren't we getting off the  
track just a tiny bit here?

Oh, I give up.  You obviously know far more than I do about American  
culture, despite the fact that I grew up in the suburbs and attended  
public school, went to college and lived in a rural area for seven years,  
and now have resided in a large city for 6 years.

>Anyone want to quote a survey on this? They may recognize the
>face, but I *doubt* that they'd remember the name. Then again,
>since she's been on talk shows and such lately, I suppose it's
>not good to use her as an example. But there are a lot of models
>who do not have her celebrity status, whose faces are familiar.

>Advertisers use them because of their *page-stopping* power.

Right, you admit it yourself.  You used a bad example.  After all the  
deliriously wandering testimony of how well-versed in everything you are,  
you failed to even show the slightest awareness of a Cindy Crawford's mass  
popularity.  The woman has her own show on MTV, for God's sake!!!  Even I  
know this, and I don't even have cable TV.    

And to boot, your explanation of "page-stopping power" supports my claim  
that these images are widely-consumed.  (I think the circulation levels of  
magazines such as Cosmopolitan and Glamour speak for themselves.)  The  
argument I presented (that of potentially damaging stereotypes) has  
virtually no relationship whatsoever to whether or not the public knows  
Cindy Crawford's (or insert your favorite supermodel's) name per se', but  
to whether or not the images she creates as a model are extremely familiar  
to the public at large. 

[To the net in general]:  Yes, indeed, I am truly astounded by this  
individual who apparently enjoys nothing more than to wallow in the gross  
excess of verbosities with which he drowns this newsgroup (but hopefully  
not others).