From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:32:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct8.003008.20756@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>
>>>You're probably not gonna like this answer.
>>>Suppose I was your boss.
>>>Suppose somebody else had to spend time in the area where either 
>>>calendar was.
>>>Supoose that person found either calendar objectionable enough to 
>>>complain that
> 
>>Suppose none of this was true? I have problems when supposes must be 
>>stacked too high. 
>
>Then his argument wouldn't apply and there is no reason to flame him.

Show me the personal attack. Otherwise you are flaming me.
 
>>For the record, no one else works in my cube, and most of the time,
>>neither do I. Suppose she found my jets calendar objectionable, for whatever
>>reason, why should this be a firing offense?
>
>Well, inability to work well with colleagues is not exactly *desirable*.
>I'm not saying that I would definately fire you out of hand, but
>disputes should often be mediated by the boss, IMO.

Who has this inability? Me of the person who does not like my calendar?
 
>>The point is that she will arrange -her- envirnment to suite her tastes,
>>as will I. How is it that she is not responsible if I do not like her
>>(what is the name of the mens pinup calander?) male pinup calendar?
>>
>><light goes on over my head> Chippendales!
>
>Who ever said that this is a one way street?  If you have spend a lot
>of time in -her- environment and it offends you, it *is* courteous of
>her to remove it.  

Not a whole lot offends me. The point is that different people have 
different sensibilities. And some bitch at everything. Why must all
live life to suite the most extreme members?
 
>Often, employers make rules to enforce curteousness, too.

And if they do not? And I suspect that enforcing this has the same
problems as obeying the dictates of those most easily offended. Not
everyone considers the same things as courtesies. So again we have
one persons sensibilities taking precedance over anothers.
 
>(I did ask a secretary to turn off a boiling pot pourri thing once,
>because it bothered me.  She did.  She was nice.)

And if she did not? There is nothing wrong with a potpourri pot.
 
>>>People do get offended by the damndest things.  
> 
>>Fact - that is their problem alone, most of the time.
>
>Both statments are darn true, no?

If offense is not offered, but taken, then who has the problem?
  
>>Fact - harrasment laws make me legally responsible for her tastes, no matter
>>how prudish or different from mine. They give me no such power, harrasment
>>laws are sexist from the get-go.
>
>Ah -- I see -- got an axe to grind about some particular legislation?
>Fine, grind it.  Sexist legislation should go.  What's the legislation
>that bothers you?  Got the text?  *That* would be something to flame
>over, not Lynch's post that he thought people should treat eachother
>with respect.

Once again, NO ONE HAS BEEN FLAMED. It is not a flame till there is a
personal attack. I can disagree with you without flaming you. But to
accuse me of flaming -is- a personal attack. And I do take offense.
 
>>>For the record:  I DON'T WANT PORNO CENSORED!
>>
>>A bikini calendar is NOT PORNO, and I was -not- in any way asking/referring
>>to PORNO. 
>
>Okay, he didn't claim a bikini calendar is porno, so relax.

I talk about a biking calander, he talks about porno, and you think
that I have a problem. I agree that there is a problem.
 
>>This question was asked a bit ago, and a female poster (whos name
>>escapes me) responded with a story about playboy centerfolds, completely
>>missing the point and the question. It seems to some extent, you have done
>>the same. 
>
>Playboy centerfolds do hang in some offices -- and what we are talking
>about is [possibly] offensive material in work envinonments, right?
>So what are you saying?  

I am saying that talking about them is an inappropriate and incorrect
answer to questions -specifically- about bikini calenders. You seem to
have a problem with either the concept, or with the question. 

>                      That your calendar is okay, but that Playboy...
>well now, *that's* a different issue?  How is it different?  Is it, um,
>*offensive*??

My point exactly, it's not just a different issue, it's the wrong issue.
 
>>>I do think a person who HAS to be in an area for work deserves courteous
>>>behavior from co-workers which INCLUDES removal of offensive pictures or
>>>whatever.
>>
>>And as I stated, these calanders are at my home. 
>
>Great.  Then why worry?  No one can make you take them down, except for
>maybe an offended spouse. :)

I give clarification, and you make stupid remarks. But then, we have not
communicated much so far. Most of his response assumed, incorrectly,
that the calendars were at work, despite the fact that I had stated
where they were quite clearly. Most of the above is an inappropriate
response, and your comment says that I am off target. 
 
>>If anyone does not
>>like them, they can feel free to leave. The possibility exists that
>>someday if harrasment laws are extended, they may have the right to
>>dictate my enviornment at home as well. 
>
>Pshaw.  Unconstitutional.  You own your home.  Your employer owns your
>work.  Big difference.  

Who's talking about employers? I certainly was not.
 
>(Yes, it's true -- employers CAN tell you what to say, what *not* to say,
>when to say what AND fire you for not doing so... at least while you're
>on their time.  Sheez -- talk about first ammendment violations!)
>
>And, once again, you've brought up legislation, which is not what Lynch
>was talking about (pardon me, if I misread.)

It's just as well considering how the above did not follow from what
I had posted. But guess what, I know what I wanted to say, and I can
do so even if it does not follow the above non-response.
 
>rini

Rich

payner@netcom.com