Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    By the way, it had been hanging in that place for quite a few
    years, minding its own business, until it happened to harass
    the professor.
    
    It's now history (herstory?) , banished to a dark and remote area
    of the campus where it can't harass anyone.

    I would like to see the portrait. Absent that, i'll offer a guess.
    The professor feels that portraying women as sex objects is sexual
    harassment?

    I suppose she would prefer "Satan Eating His Son".  
    
    				- Vick

    Not sure that Satanism/cannibalism would be perceived by her as an
    improvement

    How come (i know I'm going to be called nasty names), wymyn are the
    first to come up with a new definition of "SEXUAL HARASSMENT"?  It
    seems to me that anymore if you looked cross-eyed at one of them, it
    can be construed as SH.  go figure.
    
    /p

    I've seen Goya [and Rubens and Botticelli et al.] paintings that I
    would be uncomfortable to find in one setting that wouldn't phase me in
    the least in another.
    
    I believe that context is the basis of this particular complaint about
    the Goya nude, not that it exists where it can be seen by other humans.
    
    For example:  I would be very uncomfortable seeing a Goya nude in my
    gyn's examining room, but not the waiting room -- marginally
    uncomfortable if it were in the private office.
    
    Would my discomfort level equate to harrassment?  I wouldn't say so,
    no.  But there are things that make me more uncomfortable that I would.
    
    re.5
    
    It's only harrasment if one asked you not to cross your eyes at her and
    you continue to do so that the line gets crossed ...
    
      Annie

    Wasn't the Goya painting "Saturn Eating His Children" not "Satan Eating
    His Son"?  
    
    Regardless, canibals consider this sample of Goya's grey period to be
    foodist and a blatant form of gastronomic harassment.
    
    Two related stories-  The Washington monument is being torn down since
    its phallic representation is considered sexually harrassing.
    
    Trains will no longer be permitted to go into tunnels since the tunnels
    have never consented.  Every train will serve six years before being
    permitted to get their lives back on track.

>    Regardless, canibals consider this sample of Goya's grey period to be
>    foodist and a blatant form of gastronomic harassment.

I think you've got it backwards.  It's the victims of cannibalism that are
complaining.

    Re .8: Hey, I've never heard a _single_ cannibalism victim complain.
    Cite your sources, please.
    
    (The painting probably is insulting to cannibals, by the way; I don't
    believe most of them (a) eat their food raw, and (b) start with the
    head...)
    
    -b

    Not only start with the head but bite the head off.  Most cannibals
    show better table manners than to eat with their hands. 
    
    It's media misrepresentation.  Cannibal Nation is going to picket the
    Louvre.

    Well, it's chocolate Easter bunny time and guess which part I always
    bite off first.   Heh heh heh heh heh heh .....   
    
    					- Vick

    Well. some of us with big ears have a problem with the whole
    easter bunny business.
    
    8-{)
       \
    

  	Now that you mention the bunny...why is there an
	Easter Bunny that brings chicken eggs. Why isn't
	there an Easter Chicken ?

    Perhaps there should be a ban of motorcycles. Yha know... Yha don't
    ride the metal. Yha ride the......

    And if next time someone is standing on an over pass, and watching cars
    cruise the under. Think of the phallic symbol and the late model
    Corvettes. You will notice the shape with the large head, and tapering
    tail.... Scratch two more products of man kind....:)

    Next thing they are gonna take away is my six gun! <spinning in hand,
    then dropping into side holster>

    The bunny sued for species harassment and the chicken, having breasts
    any bunny would envy, was perceived as not having brains enough to hide
    eggs well enough to be a challenge to young children. 
    
    Of course, Chicken Nation is picketting the entire Easter thing.
    
    The bunny got the job.  The chicken got fried.

    Stop, George.  You're turning me on.  You big tease.

re .0, Patrick, as I understand the ruling in the florida case from
news reports, the centerfolds in the workplace were deemed to contribute
to an atmosphere of harassment; that is, women were uncomfortable with
the way men treated them in and around areas where the centerfolds were 
on display.  The judge found that these displays contributed to that kind
of atmosphere, that sort of social environment wherein harassment would
take place, and not be prevented.  I have no problems with 'art' in some
environments, but I could easily see how a nude in a classroom or student
area would possibly contribute to an atmosphere wherein some students felt
free to make harassing remarks.  If removal of the painting prevents that
kind of atmosphere, then the removal was the right thing to do, "fine art"
or not.  Until the people in this society learn not to make remarks of 
harassing nature, stripping the environment of things that contribute to
the harassers' remarks is a sadly necessary preventative measure.  And in
a culture which has defined sexual harassment as illegal, then institutions
are only being smart to protect themselves by taking such preventative
measures.

DougO

        Do art museums ban such harassment?
        
        Dan

    
    Heck, do ya mean I gotta "pull" down my poster of a Ferrari Dino coz it
    could be construed as a phallic symbol and it'll start harassin' the
    wymyn in the area.?
    Personally, I'd ban DDUs that do full length seeks when testin' drives,
    they harass me every time I used one :^)....ol' hardware joke.
    
    Get real you guys and stop this madness before we start banning all
    museums and art galleries because it offends some sexually repressed
    nutter....... male/female type twit.

.17>Until the people in this society learn not to make remarks of 
.17>harassing nature, [...]
    
    Some people might say the problem lies with overly sensitive, immature
    members of society who actively seek out any cause to portray them-
    themselves as victims and to get attention.
               
    Children pull that all the time.

    re: .last bunch
    
    	I rest my case.
    
    /p

>    Some people might say the problem lies with overly sensitive, immature
>    members of society who actively seek out any cause to portray them-
>    themselves as victims and to get attention.

yes, Michael, but we don't expect all that much of you.  Fortunately the
judge who heard all the facts of the case in Florida wasn't affected by 
any such mumbo-jumbo.

Anyone who's worried about banning art museums might choose to consider
whether or not such strictures about the workplace ban free expression in
contravention of the 1st amendment.  If you feel strongly about it, suggest
you contact your personnel rep for advice *before* you put up your posters.

DougO

    DougO,
    Ya too serious man, lighten up. A sexually explicit poster would
    "never" go up in a DEC work area.
     But the day will come when some art exhibit will be closed (some have
     already be closed- Warhol eg) by some repressed, morally corrupt crusader
     and that will be the beginning of the end. I love art but have no
    appreciation of the real quality and envy those that do and it is for
    those that know real beauty and quality that I say the removal of a
    painting because some warped person sees harassment in it is WRONG.
    
    Over-sensitive, immature people ARE generally the first to whine about
    these things. Have ya ever noticed the whiners never contribute
    constructively to anything or anyone.
    

    re:.22
    
    Yer preaching to the choir!  I'm _glad_ the painting was removed.
    
    It was only a matter of time before it reached out and actually
    pinched the professor's bottom.  :^)  It might've even attempted 
    to assault her, if it had gone unpunished for harassing her.

    Now, now. The difference between a workplace and a museum is that
    employees have to be in the former and visitors can go to the latter at
    their option. Not the same thing at all.
    
    Uh, unless you _work_ in a museum. Hmmm. "Excuse me, Prof. Stone,
    but I'd like to request a transfer out of the 'Phallic Symbolism in
    Ancient Mesopotamia' wing, please; after the visitors have been through
    the whole exhibit, the way they look at me is beginning to make me
    very uncomfortable..."
    
    Sorry, that was flip. (Also irrelevant to my argument - one who chooses
    to work in a museum, or a bar featuring topless dancers, or a day-care
    center, ought to be aware of the things they may have to stare at day
    in and day out. Software engineers would probably take it as harassment
    of a most serious kind if somebody plunked dirty diapers on their desks
    several times a day, but a day-care worker who couldn't cope with such
    would probably gain very little sympathy.)
    
    I wish some people weren't quite so ready to take offense, and that
    some weren't so ready to give it, and I _really_ wish people could
    discuss the matter without either side feeling that their personal
    worth will be damaged if they alter their behavior or their demands one
    whit. 
    
    -b

    
    Rusty dear,
    
    Of course you can be flippant, its the way of the box.
    And good to see you agree about the immature, sensitive perspective,
    it's only common sense after all.
    
    I wonder if this woman could get those sexually harassing Hallmark
    cards banned Kris ??
    
    I'm always intimidated by the romantic cards coz I'm NOT a caring,
    sharing, sensitive, new age guy. :^)
    

    >the former and visitors can go to the latter at
    >their option.

    But what if they have to pass by one of these pictures that will come
    out an pinch their bottoms to see a picture of a field of flower? Or
    some other non offensive painting. Remember that art the beauty of the
    eye. Just don't try burning my flag.:)
    
    And don't forget that there are more folks voting for the Elvis post
    stamp than there were voting for who will lead us for the next four
    years.

 A simple example of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

    	Seems to me that we have begun a Feminazi movement. First ban what
    prior to now has been considered fine art and is now harassing. Next
    we'll ban books, censor movies, and little by little we can strip away
    all of the freedoms . . . 

    Why don't we just paint a bikini on her.  - Vick

 Why don't we just tear a few pages out of The Divine Comedy?

 Why don't we just eliminate a few stanzas of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner?

 Why don't we just excise a few bars of Vivaldi's "The Four Seasons"?

 Why don't we just use a magic marker on a Renoir?

    Re .26: The way of the box? This is MENNOTES, not SOAPBOX - though at
    times I can see how someone might be mistaken. ;-)
    
    Re last few: Aren't people jumping the gun a bit? There are plenty of
    things that are handled differently in the workplace than in art
    galleries or museums; why should rules that protect people from
    workplace harrassment necessarily indicate that the next step will be
    to close all the galleries? Indeed, from what I've seen, the foes of
    sexual harrassment (including what some have referred to as
    "Feminazis") seem to be concentrating on offensive material in the
    workplace or in public areas, while the forces who are trying to censor
    the arts seem, in general, to consist of the leaders of various
    religious groups, most of whom are men...
    
    Hey, now that I come to think of it, maybe those groups *are* secretly
    plotting to suppress all "sensitive" material, working both ends
    towards the middle. What a great coalition _that_ would make: the
    Bible-belters and the Glass-chewers! I bet seats at their fund-raising
    lunches would fetch a higher price than those for a WWF championship...
    
    Conspiracy theories, anyone?
    
    -b

    RE: .32
    
    > Re last few: Aren't people jumping the gun a bit?
    
    No sh*t!!
    
    Folks, I just looked outside.  The sky is not really falling.
    

    >Folks, I just looked outside. The sky is not really falling.
    
    Are you sure? :) 
    
    Signed a Chicken Little fan. :)

        And they're closer to it in Colorado Springs, too, so
        they'd notice first. :-)
        
        Dan

    Funny thing about falling sky.... It seems to fall in a liquid or semi
    solid state. <rain/snow> :)

       re: .17

       Doug,

       I've thought about this and have to admit that there are things that
       I would find offensive in the workplace but I feel that this type of
       banning has swung the pendulum too far out into the upper ozone
       layer.  This was a College campus.  If we become so intolerant as to
       have all works of art removed from College campuses why not have all
       art books removed from the library.  The students could go there and
       make the same type of remarks.  For that matter why do they need a
       painting to make these types of remarks?  What if I tell Christians
       that their crucifixs depicting a half naked Christ is offensive and
       exploits men?

       My question is still unanswered.  What has this got to do with
       sexual harassment?  If people at Penn State are harassing this Prof
       then deal with them, but a painting???  Come on.  This sounds more
       like Axe Grinding than Sexual Harassment.

       patrick

re 'jumping the gun', yes, Beth; I find them reactionary.

I'm more amused then anything by the fuss; people seem to think that
the defense of nudes on campus equates somehow to the defense of art
in general and thence to the defense of free speech.  What is fine art
in a culture if not a reference point to the values of that culture?
And what values is the culture promoting when it strikes things that
contribute to a harassing atmosphere from being in the workplace?  I
am far more comfortable striking items that contribute to harassment
from the workplace, as a cultural value, than I am leaving up some moldy
painting just because it's by some dead guy who had a way with a brush,
200 years ago.  Put the dead guys' paintings in galleries and museums
where people who want to see them can.  Get nudes out of mixed workplaces
if that helps prevent clods from making rude comments that hurt people.
Why are paintings considered more valuable than peoples' feelings?

re .37, Patrick, you're exagerating.  "If we become so intolerant as to
    have all works of art removed from College campuses why not have all
    art books removed from the library."  This was not all "works of art";
this was in a category that a judge has found inappropriate for people's
workplaces.  Not all art is like that.  The types that are should be available
in galleries for people who want it, privately for people who want it in their
homes; but NOT in people's workplaces.  Simple, huh? 

> My question is still unanswered.  What has this got to do with
> sexual harassment?

I *did* answert that, but I'll try one more time.  In a workplace where nude
magazine centerfolds were displayed, a judge found that such display contributed
to an 'atmosphere' wherein harassment was tolerated; and that such material
contribution is disallowed by laws forbidding harassment in the workplace.  I
can easily see how a professor, having experienced more than a few comments 
in and around the painting, would choose to request the removal of the nude 
rather than disciplinary actions of students or possibly tenured colleagues.
I suspect she picked the easier target.  If it cuts down on the amount of
harassment she gets, I'd say she's vindicated.  If it gives her the chance
to issue her students and colleagues a subtle warning ("I'm taking harassment
seriously, so watch out") and they heed the warning, so much the better.  And
what harm has been done?  A dusty nude is remaindered, such a tragedy; and a
woman's right to work free from harassment has been reinforced.  That's good.

I'd like to repeat the above, this is a serious question: we are not talking
about "all art".  What harm has been done by taking down this type of painting?

DougO

    re:DougO
    
    	Funny.......people thought the same things in 1933. How can the
    rantings of lunatic in Germany affect us? How can the discrimination of
    a few Jews cause anyone a problem.......????
    
    	C'mon. Little by little freedoms are eroded by one snively person
    who feels persecuted........No matter how light you make of it, it is 
    a dangerous precedent. You'd feel much differently if some man found a
    means by which he could get a judge to declare that abortion or some
    other "freedom" was a form of harassment and had to be halted. 
    
    	I don't see any huge conspiracy or movement to destroy anything, I
    see the tip of a pickhammer hitting a cement wall taking little chunks
    at a time that are continually weakening the overall structure. I see
    individual rights endangering rights of others a bit at a time. That is
    extremely dangerous because it allows precedent to be built upon in the
    courts. 
    
    K

    Another one for the proff...
    
    Welp..... Guess someone better take a catch a plane flight to Italy!
    There are lots of nude paintings there! Slap a bikini on em all! Shame
    on showing your genitals to the public. That 200 year old fart painter
    was a sexual divot. Musta been thinking dirty thoughts when painting
    those chapels and such...... Someone pass me a aspirin.....

>Get nudes out of mixed workplaces if that helps prevent clods from making 
>rude comments that hurt people.

 The premise is that the existence of the nude painting in the classroom
foments sexual harrassment. Now that the painting has been removed, if the
"rude comments" were to increase, why that would just be plain old backlash.
And if the number of comments were reduced, why that's vindication; ipso
facto the painting was causally linked to harrassment. And if there is no
change in the amount of "harrassment," well, how exactly would that be 
explained?

>Why are paintings considered more valuable than peoples' feelings?

 Well, all forms of "art" are considered to be more important than people's
feelings when the people who are offended are labeled as "the religious right."
Not so surprisingly, the same people who have come out hammer and tong against
those offended by sexually explicit "art" are the first to rush to the defense
of this professor. So apparently the rule is that liberals and feminists
have feelings that are more important than art, but art is more important than 
the feelings of the religious and conservative.

>In a workplace where nude
>magazine centerfolds were displayed, a judge found that such display contributed
>to an 'atmosphere' wherein harassment was tolerated; and that such material
>contribution is disallowed by laws forbidding harassment in the workplace.

 Claiming that a classic painting is the equivalent of a men's periodical
centerfold seems to be stretching the judge's intent just a wee bit.

>I can easily see how a professor, having experienced more than a few comments 
>in and around the painting,

 Has the professor claimed a causal link between the painting and rude comments
or is this a little bit of poetic license and supposition on your part?
It sure sounds to me like you are bending over backward to give the professor
every possible benefit of the doubt, to the point of being an apologist
for what outwardly appears to be a very simple case of agenda pushing.

>If it cuts down on the amount of harassment she gets, I'd say she's vindicated.

 And odds are that if the amount of harrassment she gets doesn't change or
increases, you STILL feel she's vindicated. True or untrue?

>If it gives her the chance
>to issue her students and colleagues a subtle warning ("I'm taking harassment
>seriously, so watch out") and they heed the warning, so much the better.

 Subtle? You've gotta be kidding.

> And what harm has been done?

 I'm sure you've never taken the position that a given court case or piece
of legislation was "the camel's nose," eh, Doug?

>a woman's right to work free from harassment has been reinforced.

 At what cost?

 We have a case of a woman who is apparently offended by the naked female form. 
Talk about internalized misogyny. Either that or she's simply axe grinding.

 Either way, the decision was ludicrous (barring the unlikely possibility that
the painting shows actual sex acts or demeans women.)

    George,  I trust you know I was kidding.  Or do I really have to use
    a smiley face?  - Vick

    
    Vick,

    I am always in mode of giving razz when razz is due. :) Your just that
    special kinda folk to razz with or on. :) But the smiley face will
    help. And I will do such in turn as so not to give false and misleading
    indications of my written intent.
    
    
    Signed a Fan of yours.
    

re .41, Mark-

> The premise is that the existence of the nude painting in the classroom
> foments sexual harrassment.

"contributes to an atmosphere" is the way I've seen the florida ruling
verbiage stated in the press several times.  'foments'?  "stirs up, incites"
according to my dictionary...you're putting it stronger than the judge did.
So no, that *isn't* the premise.

> Now that the painting has been removed, if the
> "rude comments" were to increase, why that would just be plain old backlash.

Very perceptive.  You are helping point out that the debate itself around 
harassment has become politicized.  So who defines harassment?  (Hint: within 
DEC, its the person offended.)  Your dismissal of a retaliatory escalation as 
"plain old backlash" tells me that you don't think it could happen.  Why not?  
Never seen a whistleblower punished?

> And if the number of comments were reduced, why that's vindication; ipso
> facto the painting was causally linked to harrassment. 

"ipso facto" "by that very fact".  Not necessarily; the warning aspect of the
removal suggests a second-level social context which could similarly serve to
reduce the harassment.  Situations of harassment are rarely so simple as your
words suggest you think they are.

> And if there is no change in the amount of "harrassment," well, how exactly 
> would that be explained?

Oh, hey, Mark, you're the one making up scenarios; I'd hate to disturb the
roll you're on.  Don't let my opinion that you're 0-for-2 stop you.

> Well, all forms of "art" are considered to be more important than people's
> feelings when the people who are offended are labeled as "the religious right."
> Not so surprisingly, the same people who have come out hammer and tong against
> those offended by sexually explicit "art" are the first to rush to the defense
> of this professor. 

IN THE WORKPLACE.  Your casual neglect of that significant context disturbs me,
Mark.  Losing your grip?  The religious right did such things as filing suit to
close an art exhibit in a gallery in Cinncinati; attempting to prevent *anybody*
from seeing that art.  Not the same thing at all and you know it.

> Has the professor claimed a causal link between the painting and rude comments
> or is this a little bit of poetic license and supposition on your part?
> It sure sounds to me like you are bending over backward to give the professor
> every possible benefit of the doubt, to the point of being an apologist
> for what outwardly appears to be a very simple case of agenda pushing.

You puzzle me.  I haven't seen anything in the national press about this,
have you?  Your "simple agenda pushing" looks totally outlandish to me; when
someone here at DEC describes something as straightforward as a representation
of nudes as offensive or harassing they are believed as a matter of course, no
matter how artistic the representation in question.  Why should UPenn be any
different?  Why do you see this as agenda pushing?  Why don't you believe a
person who says they find something to be harassing?  If anyone is pushing
agendas it looks more like you, imho.

> And odds are that if the amount of harrassment she gets doesn't change or
> increases, you STILL feel she's vindicated. True or untrue?

If the amount increases or stays the same, 'vindicated' is probably not the
word I'd use.  I'd feel she's being victimised, same as any other victim of
sexual harassment.  I'd also still feel she was right to try to fight it.

>> a woman's right to work free from harassment has been reinforced.
>
> At what cost?

Well, yes, that's the question I asked.

> We have a case of a woman who is apparently offended by the naked female form. 
> Talk about internalized misogyny. Either that or she's simply axe grinding.

WHAT?????  I do think you're completely misreading the basenote.  I read 
a report of harassment as between people.  The painting does not incite 
("foment", in your words) harassment; but contributes to an atmosphere where
*other* *people* commit harassment.  You're getting as simplistic as Michael
these days, Mark; snap out of it, can't you?

DougO

    	Just as a personal observation, I have heard a lot more lewd
    comments around AIDS-awareness/condom adverts that I have ever heard
    around classical art. It is obvious to me which of the two should be
    banned if supressing that type of sexual harassment is your objective.

    Yeah, but AIDS-awareness adverts are sooo Politically Correct, as are
    claims of "hurt" feelings by members of previously identified
    professional victim groups.   Don't expect rational behavior from these
    sort of folks.

    Mike

	To those who would dismiss the statements about
	increasing censorship of what has heretofore
	been considered "art" ( paintings by the Master ):

	I believe it was just last century that bluenoses
	(you know, the Mrs. Grundys) initiated a huge movement
	to have maple leaves constructed to cover the 
	"offending parts" of nude statues.

	If we, as a society, begin to decide that the most
	sensitive of us decide the bounds of "decency",	
	"harassment", "sexism", et al, then I suggest that
	we will very soon have a society that will be
	the envy of no one, and the laughingstock of
	everyone.

	Heaven help us, they're trying to ban colognes and
	perfumes in some cities, because some miniscule
	fractions of the population are "sensitve" to scents.

	This makes the short list of offensive things:

	1) No condoms in school.
	2) Condoms in school.
	3) Scents.
	4) Nude photos, sculpture, drawings or performances.
	5) Restriction of nude photos, sculpture, drawings or performances.
	6) Automobiles.
	7) Technology.
	8) European literature.
	9) Anything created by, thought of, written or invented,
	   manufactured, planned or suggested by a DWEM ( dead
	   white European male ).
	10) Alcohol.
	11) Fur.
	12) Babies in public.
	13) Failure to revere babies in public.
	14) Animals in laboratories, zoos, back yards, clothing,
	    or on dinner plates.


	Gimme a break.....(and to all those of similar mind,
	Get a life !)

	Steve H

    Yes, but we are, in fact, living at one of the most unrestrictive
    periods of our nation's history.  Nudity on TV, bra ads where real
    actual good-lookin' living female models are displayed wearing the
    product.  Thong swimsuits everywhere.  Highly sexual soap operas.
    The Maplethorpe exhibit.  Uninhibited gore and sex in the movies.  
    Etc, etc.  Yes we have to protect the freedom of expression.  But I'll 
    wait for a few more alarms to sound.  The Goya incident seems more
    laughable than worrisome.  And I haven't heard enough details to really
    know what went on.  
    
    						- Vick

>"contributes to an atmosphere" is the way I've seen the florida ruling
>verbiage stated in the press several times.

 Seems like some pretty wide latitude could be taken with such verbiage.
Mebbe there will need to be a standard for the amount and type of lighting
in any given work environment, since lighting is very important to 
"atmosphere."

>Your dismissal of a retaliatory escalation as "plain old backlash" tells 
>me that you don't think it could happen.

 No, it's practically guaranteed to happen. Which is precisely what Prof
Axe Grinder wants, IMO. You see, it guarantees both an increase in harrassment
(which can be parlayed into an excuse for either increasingly draconian
"thou shalt nots" or maybe just a bigger reason to bring the harrassment issue
into the public sphere for discussion. And of course, the little bit of media
exposure doesn't hurt much either.

 BTW- I'm hardly surprised that you neatly sidestepped the issue of what 
explanation you'd offer if there was no change in the amount of harrassment.
You did seem to predicate your support for the removal of this egregious
affront to working women on the supposition that it would serve to reduce
the amount of harrassment.

>Why do you see this as agenda pushing? 

 College professors often push agendas. It seems like "much ado 'bout nothing."
It is the most likely (to me) explanation for the silliness of the particular
complaint.

>Why don't you believe a person who says they find something to be harassing? 

 Well, of course, it depends on who's claiming the harrassment and what
it is they are claiming as harrassment. One would suspect this would be obvious.
In this case, the claimed harrassment seems to me to be ridiculous; which
in turn tends to discredit the source of the complaint (particularly since
we are talking about a college professor.) Tell me, could she be accurately
characterized as a "radical feminist," Doug?

>The painting does not incite 
>("foment", in your words) harassment; but contributes to an atmosphere where
>*other* *people* commit harassment.

 Sez you, and says the prof, and apparently, says the judge. Doesn't mean
I have to agree. I think that's basically a load of baloney. One could just
as easily say that putting all those seats in a classroom creates an
atmosphere where anonymous harrasment is more likely. BFD. It just is not the
same as when a bunch of guys hang up actual pictures of nekkid ladies. That,
I can understand, as contributing to an atmosphere where harrassment is
likely.

> The religious right did such things as filing suit to
>close an art exhibit in a gallery in Cinncinati; attempting to prevent *anybody*
>from seeing that art.

 You really don't get the connection, do you? 

 I'll give you a hint. People, yes, even women, actually WORK in galleries.
It's true- I'm not making this up. Ipso facto, a gallery is a place of work.
And all it takes is one exposed nerve to lodge a complaint against a gallery
for the kaka to really hit the fan. You don't see the camel's nose because
you simply refuse to acknowledge that camels exist. Makes it easy to say it
isn't a camel's nose, eh? No doubt deep in your heart you don't believe it 
would ever come to that. Get the hint- IT IS COMING TO THAT! That's exactly
what this argument is about. The lengths to which some will go to find a reason
to justify an attack on something or someone, couched in politically correct
terms and predicated on the politics of victimization. To you, it's cause
for celebration. For me, it's cause to say, "Hey, that is bullshit."

    Does anybody know the details or the context of this incident?
    Little things, like who, why was a complaint lodged, what was
    the University's response, etc. etc.  
    
    					andrew

    RE: .49  The Doctah
    
    > Which is precisely what Prof Axe Grinder wants, IMO.
    
    You've arrived at this opinion without knowing the professor herself,
    and without knowing the details of the case (beyond a brief description
    of the ruling)?  In my opinion, it sounds like you have your own axe
    to grind here.
    
    > It is the most likely (to me) explanation for the silliness of the 
    > particular complaint.
    
    Again, you say this without knowing the details of the complaint.
    Sounds like a pre-judgment.
    
    What's the deal here?

    He doesn't need to know
    
    I think he is making an informed guess, and also making an editorial
    about it. If you realized you were doing that more of the time, you
    wouldn't need to spend endless hours trying to defend your OWN
    editorial views.

    It isn't an "informed guess" if he hasn't been informed about
    the situation, though.
    
    It sounds like just a guess (and a prejudgment.)
    
    My question was for The Doctah, in any case.  I'd like to hear what
    he has to say.

    if he has any sense at all he won't respond to your taunting him to
    argue

    Herb, relax.  I asked some simple questions.
    
    The Doctah will make up his own mind as to whether or not he wants
    to answer.  No one is taunting him (and he does have the capacity
    to make his own decision without coaching from you.)
    

    
    I wonder if the good professor isn't trying to get into the "rubber
    chicken" circuit with Anita Hill at $10K a pop.
    
    fred();

ok, Mark, so you see it as an axe-grinding radical feminist on a crusade
to introduce camels' noses, and I see it as an individual objecting to an
item that contributed to an atmosphere of harassment in her workplace.  You
didn't see fit to answer whether or not you'd seen anything else about this
in the press, so I assume you're working from the basenote, same as I am.
My, my; what wildly differing interpretations we cnstruct out of our own
perceptions of the current social scene.

> You did seem to predicate your support for the removal of this egregious
> affront to working women on the supposition that it would serve to reduce
> the amount of harrassment.

Not quite.  My support is based on supporting her in taking a stand against 
a situation she finds harassing.  I'm more inclined to take the word of the
woman on the ground in the situation that the situation is indeed harassment.
You seem more inclined to conclude she's an axe-grinder.  That's your problem,
stereotyping female professors who protest harassment, not mine.

All your talk about camel's noses and protecting art galleries is off base
to me.  This is real simple.  People work in art galleries, yes, Mark, but
knowingly; I have no sympathy for an employee in an art gallery who can't
handle art.  That person needs job counseling (not harassment, mind you, just
advice on finding a workplace better suited.)  But in most other environments,
exposure to nude art is *not* a part of the job requirements and judges have
had something to say about the environment of those jobs.  Do I think that the
judge's verbiage is subject to wide interpretation?  Yes.  Is it a great mark
of significant jurisprudence?  No.  Is it an appropriate remedy in today's
culture to forbid nude displays in workplace environments?  Seems like a
reasonable protection extended from the courts to women, to indicate to the
employers in the country just how seriously the courts are taking the issue.
How sad it was deemed necessary.  But as a precedent to FORCE employers to
acknowledge their responsibilities in harassment issues, I'm real glad that
that judge made that decision.

Hey, you have your opinions, I have mine.  We ever get some real background
on this case, I'd be interested to see your opinions again.

DougO

          <<< Note 785.50 by VMSMKT::KENAH "Made direct amends..." >>>
                          -< How about some details? >-

>>  Does anybody know the details or the context of this incident?
>>  Little things, like who, why was a complaint lodged, what was
>>  the University's response, etc. etc.  
    
>>  					andrew


       I heard this as a news item on NPR.  The ACLU was filing a suit
       against the Prof./University.  They also were filing another suit in
       California (Berkley I think) regarding a waitress who refused to
       serve a man who was reading a Playboy at his table.  She filed a SH
       suit also and a number of people later did a 'Read In' at the diner
       followed by Andrea Dworkin countering by reading an altered ending
       to her book where the herioine goes on a killing spree and murders
       several men. The mostly female crowd cheered.  Other than that I
       don't have any more details to give you.  Sorry.

       patrick

>I'm more inclined to take the word of the
>woman on the ground in the situation that the situation is indeed harassment.
>You seem more inclined to conclude she's an axe-grinder.  That's your problem,
>stereotyping female professors who protest harassment, not mine.

 Absent any additional information to iondicate whether this was a true
case of an honest woman simply trying to voercome harrassment or whether it
was a conniving axe grinder, you still have enough information to label my
perspective as being problematic. Tsk, tsk, how unvaluing of difference.

 And I don't "stereotype" female professors who protest harrassment just 
because they are female or just because they protest "harrassment." They've
gotta give me a reason to form an opinion one way or another. Given the
information that has surfaced on this case, I formed such an opinion and
had the audacity to actually state my position. Good heavens, the sky is 
falling down. For that I am in just so many words accused of being a social
neanderthal. Such is life; it's hardly the first time a politically incorrect
opinion has subjected me to such treatment.

 If a female professor claimed sexual harrassment because a colleague
repeatedly came onto her despite numerous requests to stop, I'd form the
opinion that she was telling the truth. Why? Because that is likely to 
happen and her response seems to be reasonable. I see neither of these
credibility reinforcing qualities in the case in question. Indeed, the
case tends to go the other way for me. That's why I formed the opinion
I did.

 Maybe Goya's painting is entitled "The Milk Maid's Nether Eye" and shows
something which is an illegal sexual act in a number of states. Maybe
every third male student who walks by sez "How 'bout you and me tryin'
that, eh Prof?" Until such time as I am convinced that a) the objection
is genuine and b) there is real (not legal) grounds for objection, I choose
to characterize this case as feminazi overkill, a small "win" for feminists
but a major setback in the PR war. Seems to me that energy would be better
expended where real offense lies. And there would be much less backlash.

hmph!  poor old Mark is worried that I'm not valuing his differences!
Tell you what, you label someone you don't know more of than the basenote
as an axe-grinding radfem professor, you deserve all the scorn you get.
These kinda statements, TOTALLY absent any other information, is what I
called you on for stereotyping.  You know *nothing* of the complaint, where
did you get 'silliness'?  Your prejudices are showing.

"College professors often push agendas. It seems like "much ado 'bout nothing."
It is the most likely (to me) explanation for the silliness of the particular
complaint."

Now, your last statement was real interesting, too.  

>            ...Until such time as I am convinced that a) the objection
> is genuine and b) there is real (not legal) grounds for objection, I choose
> to characterize this case as feminazi overkill, a small "win" for feminists
> but a major setback in the PR war. Seems to me that energy would be better
> expended where real offense lies. And there would be much less backlash.

You don't know the political background of the professor *at* *all*.  Serve
you right if she's a conservative legal scholar with hobbies of pistol and
flyfishing, would you feel an idiot for calling her a feminazi then!  But
until you can be *shown* that your statements are idiotic, you'll feel quite
happy to have made them.  But lets get past this-

what do you mean by "PR" war?  Do you imagine that feminism is about PR?
PR victories are cheap, Doc, they're hollow.  Spin doctors win PR wars.
PR is not where I think feminist victories are to be won.  Feminist victories
are to be won by people pushing past the limits that have been imposed on women,
whether its a single professor finally getting up the nerve to confront some
artwork that she feels she shouldn't have to deal with, or a judge fining the
big buckos out of O.R. bigots.  Those victories have to be taken on the ground
in a thousand thousands of everyday skirmishes against the traditional ways of
doing business, holding women back.  Backlash isn't a response to feminism,
Doctah; its a tactic from the enemy camp.  Its going to be there whether women
come out fighting for their rights in radical ways or not.  Backlash is the
wounded institutions of patriarchy fighting for the status quo.  It isn't
earned and its prevalent rather completely irrespective of what we do.  So as
a tactic, picking an action to avoid backlash is a false economy, its own
waste of energy.  Avoiding backlash is a non-issue, it can't be done; what can
be done is exposing it when it happens.  As your tirade against this one
incident, absent any knowledge of the personalities involved, seems to me to 
be.  'Feminazi' is a term of backlash, Doctah; and no, I don't value it at all.

DougO

.48>    Yes, but we are, in fact, living at one of the most unrestrictive
.48>    periods of our nation's history.  Nudity on TV, bra ads where real
.48>    actual good-lookin' living female models are displayed wearing the
.48>    product.  Thong swimsuits everywhere.  Highly sexual soap operas.
    
    Ms Valerie Salembier, publisher of Family Circle magazine and adviser
    for "Mediawatch: Women, Men and Media," a national media watchdog group
    says that "sex in ads isn't as blatant now as it was in the 1970s."

.52>    about it. If you realized you were doing that more of the time, you
.52>    wouldn't need to spend endless hours trying to defend your OWN
.52>    editorial views.
    
    There's one set of standards for her, and one for everyone else.

.63>             <<< Note 785.63 by MOUTNS::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
.63>                   -< What are you whining about now, Mike? >-
.63>
.63>    
.63>    	* Yawn *
    
    Tired?

    RE: .64  Mike Z.
    
    > Tired?
    
    Not too tired to listen to you whine some more.  I enjoy a good laugh.
    

.65>             <<< Note 785.65 by MOUTNS::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
.65>
.65>    RE: .64  Mike Z.
.65>    
.65>    > Tired?
.65>    
.65>    Not too tired to listen to you whine some more.  I enjoy a good laugh.
    
    Is there anything else you want to say to me?

         <<< Note 785.62 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "take cover, Arizona!!" >>>

   .52>    about it. If you realized you were doing that more of the time, you
   .52>    wouldn't need to spend endless hours trying to defend your OWN
   .52>    editorial views.
    
    > There's one set of standards for her, and one for everyone else.
    
    
    	* Yawn *

    RE: .66  Mike Z.
    
    > Is there anything else you want to say to me?
    
    I'll keep you posted.
    

    RE: .59  The Doctah
    
    >Absent any additional information to indicate whether this was a true
    >case of an honest woman simply trying to voercome harrassment or whether 
    >it was a conniving axe grinder,...
    
    This answers the question I asked you earlier.  Thanks.
    
    >And I don't "stereotype" female professors who protest harrassment just 
    >because they are female or just because they protest "harrassment." 
    
    Well, you also used the data point that a painting was involved - THEN
    you stereotyped her.  You've characterized her politics and what she
    thinks (or at least you claim to know what she "wants") in the clear
    "absence" of info about these.
    
    Some folks said the same things about Prof. Anita Hill some months
    back.  Turned out she was a conservative Republican.  

    	Well it wasn't *that* long ago that you were required to be
    celibate and to belong to a monastic order if you wanted a teaching job
    in a British university...   Plus �a change...

    >Ms Valerie Salembier, publisher of Family Circle magazine and adviser
    >for "Mediawatch: Women, Men and Media," a national media watchdog group
    >says that "sex in ads isn't as blatant now as it was in the 1970s."
    
    Just examining the surface of that quote I can't agree with it at all.
    But perhaps she meant that what sex was there, was blatant, whereas now
    there is more sex, but it is more subtle.  Who knows?  As usual, you 
    provide us with just a little crumb and expect us to gag on it.  What
    about your opinion, Mike, is the atmosphere in the media more "anything
    goes" these days than it used to be?  
    							- Vick

.70>  about your opinion, Mike, is the atmosphere in the media more "anything
.70>  goes" these days than it used to be?  
    
    When comapred to what time period?  The 70s and 80s?  No, the attitude
    today is not more anything goes.  Just last year we saw a Reebok pump
    commercial pulled.
    
    Consider this : if sex is OK on TV, why aren't there more condom ads
    on television?
    
    Could it be that you are confusing human beauty with sex?

    >Consider this : if sex is OK on TV, why aren't there more condom ads
    >on television?
    
    Oh, lots of stupid reasons.  Like the still prevalent attitude that
    AIDS is a gay disease.  Just plain fear among networks and program
    producers that such ads will lose them share.  After all, condoms are
    birth control as well as disease control.  Watch the soaps.  Watch MTV.  
    Heck, watch Saturday Night Live.  More goes now than in the 70's.  
    
    >Could it be that you are confusing human beauty with sex?
    
    Can't imagine what I could have said that would lead you to think that.
    
    					- Vick

.71>Could it be that you are confusing human beauty with sex?
    
.70>Can't imagine what I could have said that would lead you to think that.

    This:
.30>    Why don't we just paint a bikini on her.  - Vick
    and this:
.48>    Nudity on TV, bra ads where real
.48>    actual good-lookin' living female models are displayed wearing the
.48>    product.  Thong swimsuits everywhere.  Highly sexual soap operas.
    
    Sex is not the displaying of attractive people, that's aesthetics.
    
    You seem to be either confusing or equating the two.

    The bikini comment was humor Mike.  I know it's a tough concept for
    you.
    
    You're telling me that when you see a babe in a thong bikini you don't
    think sexual thoughts, all you think is aesthetics?  You're telling me
    the steamy bedroom (if they bother to be that discrete) scenes in the 
    soaps are aesthetics?  You're saying *I'M* confused!!!!
    
    					- Vick

    Heck ... Mike can even listen to the "William Tell Overture" and not
    even come close to thinking of the Lone Ranger.

    Bubba

.74>   <<< Note 785.74 by DSSDEV::BENNISON "Vick Bennison 381-2156 ZKO2-2/O23" >>>
.74>
.74>    The bikini comment was humor Mike.  I know it's a tough concept for
.74>    you.
    
    Are you getting nasty on me?
    
    No, Victor, it's not at tough concept for me.  A smiley in your note
    would have helped.  Understand?
    
.74>  You're telling me that when you see a babe in a thong bikini you don't
.74>  think sexual thoughts, all you think is aesthetics?
    
    Exactly.  I think about how nice she looks, not how much I want to
    have sex with her.  What do _you_ think about?
    
    re: the soaps - I wouldn't know, I don't watch soap operas.

>    Are you getting nasty on me?
    
    You ARE slow to catch on sometimes.
    
>    No, Victor, it's not at tough concept for me.  A smiley in your note
>    would have helped.  Understand?
    
    Painting a bikini on a Goya nude represents an absurdity that should not
    require a smiley face.  
    
>.74>  You're telling me that when you see a babe in a thong bikini you don't
>.74>  think sexual thoughts, all you think is aesthetics?
    
>    Exactly.  I think about how nice she looks, not how much I want to
>    have sex with her.  What do _you_ think about?
 
    Liar!  :^)  
       
>    re: the soaps - I wouldn't know, I don't watch soap operas.

    Neither do I.  
    
    						- Vick

.77>   <<< Note 785.77 by DSSDEV::BENNISON "Vick Bennison 381-2156 ZKO2-2/O23" >>>
.77>
.77>>    Are you getting nasty on me?
.77>    
.77>    You ARE slow to catch on sometimes.
    
    I like to be sure before I accuse.

    I propose that we solve this issue by adopting a single level of public
    taste and sensitivity and the level which will be adopted is *mine*.
         
         Henceforth: 
         
         1) Whining is offensive and will now be banned.  
            - I will decide what is whining and what are legit complaints. 
            - Sexual harassment by Goya paintings is whining.
            - Persons who whine will be given the death penalty.
         
         2) Pictures in the workplace depicting "Ziggy" or "Kathy" or other
            cartoon characters spouting infantile life philosphies like
            "When my ship came in I was at the airport" are stupid and 
            offensive and will now be banned. 
         
            - these may be replaced by Superman, Spiderman, Doctor Strange,
            The Thing, or any other manly cartoon character spouting manly
            life philosophies like "It's CLOBBERIN' TIME!"
            - testosterone-deficient Ziggy will be burned in effigy.
         
         3) Cartoons depicting Ken Olson fishing for profits are offensive
            and will now be banned.
         
         4) Photographs of any male depicting "washboard gut" or "inflato pecs"
            contribute to a general environment of over expectation for the 
            metabolically challenged males and will now be banned.
         
         5) Photographs of Kathy Ireland or Sass Jordan are encouraged.
         
    There will be others, my fellow citizens.  Be asuured of that.
    
    Kris
    The Emperor of Good Public Morals

    Are we allowed to say "sweet patootie" in a notesfile?  
    
    				- Vick
    
    P.S.  :^)  <- just for Mike

>    Are we allowed to say "sweet patootie" in a notesfile?  
 

	only if it's a true statement...which it isn't cuz her
	patootie ain't sweet    :-)



	

    Forced, by insatiable curiosity, to ask:  what's a patootie?
    
    aq
    

    Ever heard of a horse's patoot?  If not there are some around here I
    could show you.
    					- Vick

    
    	listen here, ::MITCHELL!!!
    
    	my patootie is TOO sweet....
    	
    
    
    	i always *caress* before i dress.

    Now let me see if I've got this straight.  We can comment about
    patooties but we cannot hang pictures of them on the wall?
    
    ed

    RE.            <<< Note 785.83 by XCUSME::QUAYLE "i.e. Ann" >>>

>    Forced, by insatiable curiosity, to ask:  what's a patootie?
>   
>   aq
    
    The South end of a North-bound..........
    
    fred(;));

    I am the keeper of public taste.
    
    Talk of "patooties" is henceforth banned.

    
    	::HATASHITA!
    
    	i want to see some credentials...
    
    	mind you, a show of credenzas are permitted as well.

    Questioning the credentials of The Keeper of Public Taste is henceforth
    banned.  
    
    Any person who does so is a sexually harrassing painting and will be
    taken down and stored in a warehouse.
    
    Henceforth only black velvet Elvis paintings will be permitted to hang
    on walls visible to human eyes.

    Oh, great, you mean my "Dogs Playing Poker" has to come down?

    re .90, I consider any painting of Elvis, plus any painting done on
    black velvet to be harrassment!!
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	don't we have a god-given right to impeach his high patootie-ness?
    
    	i think we should....

    re: .90
>    Any person who does so is a sexually harrassing painting and will be
>    taken down and stored in a warehouse.
    
    	I thought sexually harassing people should be stored in a
    whorehouse?

    Any attempt to dethrone The Keeper of Public Taste through democratic
    means is a blatant example of harassment and the perpetration of a
    negative stereotype of The Keeper of Public Taste.  ::DENISE will be
    picketed by Keeper-of-Public-Taste Nation before being removed from
    public sight.

    
    	::HATASHITA,
    
    	you can't just ascend into power, nor can you be self-appointed.
    	it is unfortunate that you haven't a following large enough
    	to prevent the upcoming impeachment.
    
    	and what EXACTLY does `being removed' mean?
    
    	

    Every other whiner or self-righteous censor acting on behalf of "the
    public good" is self-appointed.  Why should I be any different.  I
    cannot be impeached.  
    
    Just like in the real world, you only have three options:
    
    	1) You can ignore me
    	2) You can mock me
    	3) You can kill me
    
    I cannot be reasoned with because, like any person who would whine that
    their real-life problems are rooted in a painting or a movie, I am
    beyond reason.
    
    Being "removed" means ending up in the same place as the works of art
    which, over the years, have offended the warped sensitivities of the 
    crybabies in our society.  Maybe they are stored in Maplethorpe's garage.
    
    The Keeper of Public Taste has spoken.

    
    	there was a 4th option you failed to recognize, oh self-righteous 
    	one...
    
    	4) a spanking
    
    	

    I have this picture of Kris over someone's knee with his shorts down!!!
    
    Nah!! He'd probably enjoy it.
    					Lots of 8-)

    I do not consider myself an upholder of public morals, but I do
    consider it my duty to keep Dan from snarfing up the .100.
    
    					- Vick

    re.91
    
    it depends.
    
    is this masterpiece a "painting" or a "tapestry"?

    .92 For shame! Lorna! You mean you don't like the King?? :-( I'm heart
    broken. I tell Elvis about you next time I see him. :) 
    
    My babys so lonely
    my babys so lone-ly 
    I could die~
    :)

    
    	not "tapestry", ::JOHNSTON, TRAVESTY!!!!

    re.104
    
    if you say so.
    
    I was trying to be suitably euphemistic ... "Dogs Playing Poker"
    reproduced on a wall-hanging-plush-rug-thingie is just tooo campy for
    words. Beats velvet-Elvis any day.
    
    From what I've seen of Z [not much, I freely admit], I'd not put him
    down as the plush wall-rug type.  But then, I wouldn't have guessed
    "Dogs Playing Poker" either.
    
    Apparently I've completely lost touch with what is au courant as my
    home has Ansel Adams and lithos of daVinci line drawings.
    
      Annie

    You mean my velvet Elvis paintings are campy?  What about the ones I
    did myself?  Even the ones where you can't see the numbers under the
    pigment?
    
    Rats.

    re:.105
    
    Ann, I hung "Dogs Playing Poker" over the bed, right next to the king
    sized mirror and red flood lights.  :")

re .99,

>    I have this picture of Kris over someone's knee with his shorts down!!!

Don't hang it up in your office or cubicle, because someone
will probably complain about it.

Dan

    re .108, I'd say it depends what he looks like with his shorts down.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	.108, 109,
    
    	it wouldn't matter....
    	they told me to take down my tastefully PC calendar of `young
    	havahd men' ....as it was not PC.
    
    	i was shocked and everything.

    The Harvard men have nothing on me.  Sure, they have good looks, cash,
    brains and buns-to-die-for but how many of them are The Keeper of
    Public Taste?  
    
    Why are you collecting kinky pictures, Bob?

    
    	well, ::HATASHITA, put that way, i can't imagine why `the keeper
    	of public taste' would be such a big deal....
    
    	we ARE talking a comparison between `the keeper of public taste'
    	with men with good looks, cash, brains and buns to die for....

    Because I also have good looks, cash, brains and buns-to-die-for.  And
    being The Keeper of Public Taste means I get to decide what constitutes
    good looks, cash, brains and buns-to-die-for.  
    
    Harvard men and Chippendales men are weenies in comparison.

    
    	if you don't mind, i'd rather continue adoring you from afar.

    re .113, I'd have to see for myself.  Why don't you send the picture
    around?
    
    Lorna
    

I don't suppose we could get back to the topic, could we?  I don't have
an infinite amount of disk space, you know.

			Steve

    
    	just as it was getting *really* interesting, too.

    Steve,
    
    If we are running out of rooom.... Archive this lovely animal file!
    Start a new! Nothing like turning over a new leaf....(puns intended
    esp if we have to paint bikini's on nudes)..
    
    

�    Why are you collecting kinky pictures, Bob?
    
    I'm not telling just where the kink is in this picture ...
    
    and besides what other type of pictures would I collect???
    
    8-)
    	�- Bob -�