dwyer@inmet.UUCP (10/10/85)
I thought some people might be interested in the following letter I am sending to the IEEE. The address I am sending it to is: IEEE Computer Society Press 1730 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-1903 I hope I posted this to the proper net group. I didn't see a net.sexism, net.exploit, or net.republican, so I sent it here. Here is the letter: To whom it should concern, I was pleased to receive my copy of IEEE Computer Society Publication's catalog. It took me about ten minutes to see that the graphics on the cover, by Steve Smith of Genigraphics Corp., contained a discernable image of a naked woman. The problem with identifying this image is that it is printed upside down on the cover. I don't have a problem with naked women, I happen to be married to one, but I think that a technical forum such as yours should not include sexually posed silhouettes. You are, potentially, offending many people who didn't expect, or want, to see that image. sincerely, Matt Dwyer End of letter: If this generates any flames, please save them as winter is fast approaching and you may need them. matt
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (10/15/85)
> /* Written 2:34 pm Oct 10, 1985 by dwyer@inmet in ccvaxa:net.women */ > I was pleased to receive my copy of IEEE Computer Society Publication's > catalog. It took me about ten minutes to see that the graphics on the > cover, by Steve Smith of Genigraphics Corp., contained a discernable > image of a naked woman. ---------- Hmmm. My first reaction was to wonder whether IEEE knew about the note-exactly-hidden, but not-exactly-obvious image. I assume they did. On reflection, I don't think it's an offensive use of sex, simply because it ISN'T obvious, catchy, or blatant. Were I they I wouldn't have used it, just because there will be some people who consider ANY use of nudes in advertising ipso facto sexism and therefore offensive. Why offend anyone if you can avoid it? In this case, though, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and guess that they meant to present a piece of computer-generated art, as art, and that the subtle use of a female silhouette was not meant as sexist or exploitative. But I'll bet they get letters... -- scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) (10/18/85)
I can't find the original posting. 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? Dale speaking for himself