nax@cornell.UUCP (10/18/85)
From: nax (Nax-Paul) In <1260@mtgzz.UUCP> dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) wrote > I found it hard to believe. Someone spent ten minutes > looking at a piece of art, found a "nude," got > offended, and wrote a letter. Seriously, if you have > to look ten minutes to find it, doesn't that suggest > something? Why, pray tell, are you spending your > time looking for nudes in pieces of art? We're talking about the cover of the latest IEEE publications catalogue here, I assume. I've handed people it, saying, "There's an upside-down nude female figure on the cover," and they (once cued in this way) spot it quickly. And I'll bet it is registered subconsciously even if it takes "ten minutes to find it." As to the rest of the quoted posting, I must assume the author forgot to :-), because I find the cover inexcusable -- but I'm saving my flames for my letter to the IEEE. See you at the Moosewood! Nax
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/21/85)
> We're talking about the cover of the latest IEEE publications catalogue > here, I assume. I've handed people it, saying, "There's an upside-down > nude female figure on the cover," and they (once cued in this way) spot > it quickly. And I'll bet it is registered subconsciously even if it takes > "ten minutes to find it." > > As to the rest of the quoted posting, I must assume the author forgot > to :-), because I find the cover inexcusable -- but I'm saving > my flames for my letter to the IEEE. > First I apologize for singling out this example. There have been several. I hadn't seen -- No! that isn't right. I had seen the catalog in question but hadn't noticed the silhouette of a nude woman when I read the first article complaining about it. I don't believe this! What is next, a call to arms to picket your local museum, because they have all those nasty *naked* statues and paintings in there? Here we are in a world where toxic waste (conventional and nulcear) is accumulating at a rate that is growing exponentially and we *don't* know how to handle it safely -- our environment is being seriously polluted every day of our lives -- the threat of nuclear war continues -- people are not safe on the streets and the mongers of simplistic solutions think that outlawing guns and setting criminals free will make everything alright -- new diseases crop up regularly -- a large fraction of the world in general, and too many even in our own country haven't enough to eat -- and on and on... And you worry that a pleasant piece of graphic art happens to include a silhouette of a nude woman, a silhouette that a dirty old man like me didn't even *notice*? Have you looked at television lately? Have you been to a movie? Have you seen the generic violence to which no one seems to give a second thought? And you are this distressed over the portrayal of a nude? Please, don't tell me that this is net.women and that women find "this sort of thing" offensive. If your problems are so few that this is a problem for you, you are, indeed, lucky. All of the problems listed above affect *women* too. How many of you have actually seen the cover? Just curious. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (10/23/85)
> > > I found it hard to believe. Someone spent ten minutes > > looking at a piece of art, found a "nude," got > > offended, and wrote a letter. > > We're talking about the cover of the latest IEEE publications catalogue > here, I assume. I've handed people it, saying, "There's an upside-down > nude female figure on the cover," and they (once cued in this way) spot > it quickly. And I'll bet it is registered subconsciously even if it takes > "ten minutes to find it." > > As to the rest of the quoted posting, I must assume the author forgot > to :-), because I find the cover inexcusable -- but I'm saving > my flames for my letter to the IEEE. > > See you at the Moosewood! Nax I just looked at my copy of the catalog, and I feel that the picture is artistic and not exploitive. I think I'll show it to people at work and ask them whether they think it's appropriate or not. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
lmf@drutx.UUCP (FullerL) (10/23/85)
The problem with a nude however presented on the cover of an IEEE publication is the same problem I've seen in ads for some electronic parts advertised in similar publications: using women's bodies to sell products. It's certainly a popular advertising technique these days with all kinds of products. Since it's a professional society that some of us belong to maybe we can have an impact on their policies. I also think it reflects an attitude that all of the readers they are targeting are heterosexual males. Lore Fuller ihnp4!drutx!lmf
@amd.UUCP (10/24/85)
> What is next, a call to arms to picket your local museum, because they > have all those nasty *naked* statues and paintings in there? > > Here we are in a world where toxic waste (conventional and nulcear) > is accumulating at a rate that is growing exponentially and we *don't* > know how to handle it safely -- our environment is being seriously > polluted every day of our lives -- the threat of nuclear war continues -- > people are not safe on the streets and the mongers of simplistic > solutions think that outlawing guns and setting criminals free will > make everything alright -- new diseases crop up regularly -- a large > fraction of the world in general, and too many even in our own country > haven't enough to eat -- and on and on... > > And you worry that a pleasant piece of graphic art happens to include > a silhouette of a nude woman, a silhouette that a dirty old man like > me didn't even *notice*? Have you looked at television lately? Have > you been to a movie? Have you seen the generic violence to which no one > seems to give a second thought? And you are this distressed over the > portrayal of a nude? > > Charlie Sorsby Don't try to cloud the issue by saying there are more important issues that silhouettes of naked women! That's only relevant for discussing in other newsgroups. Don't you think people have the energy to be concerned about more than one thing at a time? (-: If so, stop worrying about what nonsense people are discussing here and get back to work! :-) I don't think anyone's worried about whether or not "dirty old men" are going to see the nude. Hey, art museums have lots of statues of naked men for those of use who'd rather stare at naked men. Equal time in computer graphics! I don't know about anybody else, but I'm tired and bored of attractive women in computer graphics--I'm as fond of teapots as the next person, but why not a few nice looking men as well as women. Or bears! Television and movies are full of awful things like violence and sexism. If I saw a picture of somebody being beat up on the cover of some IEEE publication, I'd object. IEEE is a professional organization (my profession has little to do with naked women). Television is for entertainment (of somebody, not me). And it's not true that nobody gives a thought to the violence and sexism on tv! Maybe not your average glass teat addict, but scholarly and not so scholarly articles have been written on the effects of violence for at least 20 years. > All of the problems listed above affect *women* too. Sexism affects *men* too. Listing issues that are beside the point of the original argument is a common but not necessarily effective rhetorical technique. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
chabot@miles.DEC (10/29/85)
> The problem with a nude however presented on the cover of an IEEE > publication is the same problem I've seen in ads for some electronic > parts advertised in similar publications: using women's bodies to > sell products. It's certainly a popular advertising technique these > days with all kinds of products. > > Since it's a professional society that some of us belong to maybe we > can have an impact on their policies. I also think it reflects > an attitude that all of the readers they are targeting are > heterosexual males. However, scantily-clad women are rarely seen in ads in IEEE publications these days. When I wrote to IEEE about the woman attired in a "bathing-suit" on a bingo card for a (basic compiler? it wasn't real obvious) this spring, they were rather responsive about the fact that the ad was offensive. And it wasn't in the next set of cards; no ad from that particular company was. Has anyone written to IEEE about this? It took me a couple of weeks to get my reply about the ad. (I haven't seen the IEEE cover in question--I've changed my address and some stuff may never get to me.)