mjm@ahimsa.intel.com (Marjorie Panditji) (06/13/91)
I've seen some interesting followups to my posting, but they seemed a
little off the main point I wanted to address. I guess that's the price
you pay for putting too many ideas into one posting.
Actually, my main question was, why look at these type of pictures (GIFs
or paper, for that matter) at the office? The "jerk off" comments were pure
sarcasm (even spelled it out, but some took it seriously). But I do wonder
about why people *display* these pictures *in the office* (not why people
enjoy them in the first place).
First, wouldn't such sexually arousing pictures be distracting from their
work? I can understand some novelty affect with GIFs ("hey, that's neat"),
but that should wear off. I can't understand why some people display them,
or similar pictures on posters on the wall, continuously. Okay, maybe
these pictures are not sexually arousing to those who display them. Then
why display these types of pictures as opposed to some other types of
pictures? Also, if not sexually arousing, why are these pictures so
similar to those types of pictures in magazines that are sold purely to
be sexually arousing?
Second, ignoring why people want to look at them in the office, why should
people display them so that others can see them, instead of just for their
personal use? This is especially confusing since I think it is pretty
well known that these pictures can be offensive to some people and that
there are usually company guidelines about displaying these images to
prevent charges of sexual harassment. There must be some pretty good
reason if you are willing to offend others and risk sexual harassment
charges (or maybe people are largely ignorant of these consequences).
I can't figure out the reason. I don't even want to speculate, because
last time I did that, someone took my purely hypothetical reasons as serious
proposals on my part. But the reason I posted in the first place was
because I don't even have enough information to make an informed guess.
I do wonder if there are some other reasons than just the images in themselves
(i.e., some secondary reasons for displaying the images). I just don't know
what the reasons are.
I'd like to hear some opinions on this point, not on GIFs in general.
I hope that this is still related to soc.feminism. I think the tie in
is that there may be (are?) differences between men and women with regard
to displaying erotic/nude/sexually explicit images in the workplace.
--
Marjorie Panditji
mjm@ahimsa.intel.com -or- uunet!intelhf!ahimsa!mjmmuffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun13.155936.12964@aero.org> mjm@ahimsa.intel.com (Marjorie Panditji) writes:
Actually, my main question was, why look at these type of pictures
(GIFs or paper, for that matter) at the office? The "jerk off"
comments were pure sarcasm (even spelled it out, but some took it
seriously). But I do wonder about why people *display* these pictures
*in the office* (not why people enjoy them in the first place).
Well, I can't say for sure, but I do doubt that men want to be aroused
at the office all the time. So, I'll take a guess, based on my
conversation with a male friend of mine who does sometimes like to look
at magazines like Playboy. Perhaps, just as I have various fantasy-art
pictures in my office (and a fractal on my display), they just find them
nice to look at. I myself have never been particularly attracted to or
sexually excited by women, but I have seen some very beautiful pictures
of nude women (not generally in "men's magazines," but that's just my
personal concept of beauty). Indeed, I have seen at least one nude
photo which I would be glad to display in my office, and which I would
enjoy looking at, if I was sure that it would not upset anyone.
As to why they would force them on other people; that's harder to say,
but it may often be stubbornness. If someone came in and told me to
change my fractal background to a plain grey because the fractal was
upsetting people, I would resist this, because I don't see any reason
for anyone to find it upsetting, and I resist unreasonable demands.
Muffygannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun13.155936.12964@aero.org> mjm@ahimsa.intel.com (Marjorie Panditji) writes: [Marjorie invites explanations why people display sexually arousing pictures in the workplace] >This is especially confusing since I think it is pretty >well known that these pictures can be offensive to some people and that >there are usually company guidelines about displaying these images to >prevent charges of sexual harassment. Well, I do not have any such pictures at work, but I see this as a matter of taste. I have a rather wide taste in visual arts (cubism, expressionism, impressionism, primitivism, ...) and display representative works from each of these genres in my home. Why? Two reasons. First of all, I like to look at them. Second, I believe guests gain a perspective of me by seeing the art I appreciate. A work for which I have no reproduction (but would like one) is Manet's "Dejeuner sur l'herbe" which features a reclining female nude. I would be surprised if a guest was offended by the piece, and would certainly not display it if I thought my guests would be offended. However, I fully admit that I appreciate the work for its daring assault on social norms; and in this case, that means depicting a female nude in a "proper" social cirumstance. Also, although Manet's nude is purposely unattractive (in the norms of the day), I also appreciate several nudes meant to achieve "perfect" feminine characteristics (in the eyes of the male artist), and I'm sure part of my attraction to these works is sexual. What I'm getting at is perhaps your workmates feel the same way about their pinups as I do about my Manet. They appreciate them (for sexual, aesthetic, or whatever reasons), and haven't considered the fact that they may be offensive to some. Indeed, I have seen male nudes (the David, for instance) that I find *very* aesthetically pleasing. So why should I automatically think women should be offended by my Manet? Perhaps your workmates hang pinups because they like them, and would be happy to remove them if they thought you were offended. >I hope that this is still related to soc.feminism. I think the tie in >is that there may be (are?) differences between men and women with regard >to displaying erotic/nude/sexually explicit images in the workplace. Perhaps, but I never claim to speak for *anyone* else, men or otherwise, in matters of taste. Removing offensive material from public places such as your workplace is a matter of courtesy that should apply to everyone regardless of gender. In my office, I have a large picture of Boris Badenov about to blow Bullwinkle Moose to little bits with a bomb (I'm a Rocky and Bullwinkle fan). If an animal rights activist complained sincerely, down it would come. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, the Chaste. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Become who you are!" - F. Nietzsche. USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon
robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (06/15/91)
mjm@ahimsa.intel.com (Marjorie Panditji) writes: >Actually, my main question was, why look at these type of pictures >(GIFs or paper, for that matter) at the office? But I do wonder about >why people *display* these pictures *in the office* (not why people >enjoy them in the first place). The more interesting question is: why not? If you accept the fact that people enjoy them in the first place, why should they put one kind of picture they enjoy on their walls, and not another kind? Why are sunsets on beaches OK and bikinis on beaches right out? >First, wouldn't such sexually arousing pictures be distracting from >their work? I have a number of pictures on my wall at work. Some are various fantasy-world settings, some are cartoons I like, some are sunsets, some are pictures of those near and dear to me. Every picture I put on the wall is there because I like looking at that picture. If I like looking at a picture, then I'm probably *going* to look at it, making it a distraction. Yes, it would be distracting. No more or less than my other pictures, though, which I ignore most of the time, but sometimes spend minutes at a time inspecting. I hope your not suggesting that everyone work in bare offices? :-) >Second, ignoring why people want to look at them in the office, why >should people display them so that others can see them, instead of >just for their personal use? This is especially confusing since I >think it is pretty well known that these pictures can be offensive to >some people and that there are usually company guidelines about >displaying these images to prevent charges of sexual harassment. Probably every reason you can possibly think of. Perhaps they're straight out of college and clueless. Perhaps they are rebelling against authority. Perhaps they are making a freedom-of-speech statement, hoping to pull some manager's chain. Perhaps they intend to be offensive. Perhaps they like it and don't care what other people think. Perhaps they have the power to do so and like to demonstrate it by doing so. Perhaps, since one tends to surround oneself with things that express one's personality, they put it up to express an important part of themselves (why does society require us to supress our sexual nature, anyway?). Perhaps it's a $20,000 Nagel, and it's hip and showy. Perhaps it attracts certain kinds of men (or women!) that that person likes to associate with. Perhaps they like to live dangerously. Perhaps it keeps the feminists out of the office. ;-) I don't keep such pictures on the wall, because I don't like to offend people. If I could keep such pictures on the wall, invisible to everyone else, I might (depending on the distraction quotient! ;-) ) If I didn't care about offending people, I might put them up as a freedom-of-speech message, and a rebellion, since I don't like other people putting peer pressure on me to conform to societal rules that I think are silly, or declaring my sex drive to be wrong or evil. But to me, not offending someone or causing my friends to avoid my office is an overwhelming reason. But to paraphrase a recent commercial: why ask why? :-) Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
rivero@dev8g.mdcbbs.com (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun13.155936.12964@aero.org>, Marjorie Panditji <mjm@ahimsa.intel.com> writes: > > Actually, my main question was, why look at these type of pictures (GIFs > or paper, for that matter) at the office? The "jerk off" comments were pure > sarcasm (even spelled it out, but some took it seriously). But I do wonder > about why people *display* these pictures *in the office* (not why people > enjoy them in the first place). > For the sake of exposition, let's take this out of the context of 'sexual' pictures. My office has photographs of airplanes on the wall. I am a new pilot, and take a moment now and then to gaze wistfully at the photographs and dream of flight. There is another gentleman in this office who is also a pilot. I know, becauser I stopped by to chat about HIS airplane photographs. Down the corridor is a man with a martial arts trophy in his office so tall it touches the acoustic tile! Across from him is a lady who loves Japan, and has maps, pictures and painted screens decorating her office. In my office at home, the walls are decorated with autographed pictures of all the film people I have worked with(including one or two scantily clad actresses). In all these cases, these individuals have impressed on their environment some portion of their identity, because it pleases them to see it, and allows newcomers an insight into the person who lives in that cubbyhole. Without trying to pass value judgements on anyone, I suspect that the 'sexual' pictures which are on display are up there for pretty much the same reasons. It is what happens to be uppermost on their minds at the time. ========================================================================== \\\\ Michael Rivero | "I drank WHAT!" |"When MARRIAGE is illegal,| (. rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs | Socrates ------------------- Only | )> DISCLAIMER::: |-----------| "How come I'm | OUTLAWS will | == "Hey man, I wasn't |Looking4luv|taxed by the guy | have INLAWS! | ---/ even here then!" |Settle4sex!|I voted AGAINST!"| | ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------+++++++++++++++
fme@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun13.204257.11866@MDI.COM>, gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes: > Perhaps, but I never claim to speak for *anyone* else, men or otherwise, > in matters of taste. Removing offensive material from public places such > as your workplace is a matter of courtesy that should apply to everyone > regardless of gender. In my office, I have a large picture of Boris > Badenov about to blow Bullwinkle Moose to little bits with a bomb (I'm > a Rocky and Bullwinkle fan). If an animal rights activist complained > sincerely, down it would come. > -- Hmmm ... and so if someone was offended by your shoes, you would go buy new ones ? If someone was offended by your nose you would have it surgicaly altered ? If someone was offended by your color you would have yourself tie-dyed ? If someone was offended by your speech, you would speak words that were different from how you really felt ? If someone were offended by your very thoughts, would you take reconditioning therapy as so to make those thoughts acceptable ? If someone were offended by your very being would you throw yourself in front of a train ? In a world of 5 million + people, we are going to find individuals that are offended by essentially every possible sight, sound, smell, religion, philosophy, action and idea. The question is - How far should one deviate from ones own true self just to minimize the inevitable frictions that arise when one sentient being must interact with another ? There is a grave danger of losing ones self to the crowd - or of becoming too familiar with the art of deceit. Plasticity, compliance and selflessness are all traits highly prized by the totalitarians among us. How far is too far ? The 'sincerity' of a complaint is no guide - everyone is totally sincere when it comes to their personal aesthetics and prejudices. The sheer sexuality of say a photograph is no guide either - remember that anti-sensuality is just another prejudice drilled into us as children and should be held in the same disrepute as racism. Vague notions along the lines of "harassment" or "devaluation of personhood" have the unmistakable stench of political rhetoric and are so indefinite in meaning that each and every person in the entire world can lay claim to this kind of oppression. Insofar as the ideas expressed in this thread about sexual images serving the purposes of 'harassment' or 'male bonding' or simply 'gross-out potential' go - they can be used in any or all of these capacities. We all remember how little boys often cultivate snakes, lizards and spiders just for the shock effect they produce on the differently-enculturated little girls (I will never, EVER, use the term 'pre-women' in any other context than sarcasm - speaking of things that offend). We also remember how traditional feminine toys and props managed to 'gross-out' the boys to a similar degree. Should children be denied pets, toys and hobbies that even have the least degree of inter-group 'gross-out' potential ? On this issue, I tend to agree with those who will admit that they find images of nudes and/or erotic images pleasing to their minds. I also understand that many professional women feel that their worth is somehow diminished by the very idea of someone concentrating on the more sexual aspects of womanhood and I understand that women are less likely to feel comfortable aggressively asserting that they are more than just a collection of nice-looking body parts. Who said that a woman can be either a sexual entity -or- a respected professional ? Of course, they can be both at the same time - except for the problems produced by the deeply enculturated prejudices regarding sexuality. From time to time, we do come across a woman who manages to maximize *all* her potentials and eludes the bonds of prejudice. The most well-known such figure in the USA today is the entertainer Madonna. Not all women have the sheer force of personallity that Madonna can bring into play to manage to be both fully sexual and completely respected as an intelligent and creative professional. If Madonna can be thought of as having a utility that goes beyond the immediate entertainment she provides it is to help set an example to both men -and- women that sensuality in no way devalues a womans moral worth. So long as this either/or bias exists, I can appreciate a woman feeling a little threatened by overt sexuality in the workplace. The road to peace is twofold - work to remove the either/or prejudice and for the males to show a little empathy for a womans insecurity that they themselves help to perpetuate. This is not an endorsement for removing sexually explicit items from the workplace - that amounts to reverse discrimination and breeds anger and deep resentment. What I am suggesting is to put a little effort into reducing the 'shock potential' of such items and to put a great deal of effort into making anti-sensuality prejudices a thing of the past. In any case, empathy is a superior approach to punative corporate regulation. Such regs simply re-enforce the notion that sexuallity is something that merits punishment and shame - and this perpetuates the problem. -- Jim Mason -- Disclaimer : All ideas expressed are my own and may not represent those of my employers.
mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) (06/15/91)
Thank you, Alden Gannon and Robert Coleman (and others, but I want to respond to them in particular), for discussing this topic in a more intellectual and polite fashion than most (especially some of my mail!). Here are some further thoughts of mine on the subject. Several people have mentioned that, in many cases, people don't realize that these posters are offensive to some. They may also be ignorant of company guidelines or of potential legal consequences. I guess I didn't factor this in. I thought more people were educated about workplace guidelines on this subject. Several people have also mentioned that these pictures are simply reflective of what people like, and are no different from any other type of picture. Ah, but society (the workplace, in this case) has decided that they are a different type of picture. There are guidelines against these type of pictures, but not against, say, landscapes. You might not like the rules. But if you do know the rules, then you can't say that the pictures are just like any other type of picture. They are treated differently. Robert, in his list of reasons why to display these pictures in the office (great list! but which reasons do you think are more common?), comes up with an interesting followup question of his own. robert> Perhaps, since one tends to robert> surround oneself with things that express one's personality, they put robert> it up to express an important part of themselves (why does society robert> require us to suppress our sexual nature, anyway?). Do you think that enjoying sexual pictures outside of work, or privately, is suppressing one's sexual nature? Or is it just directing it to a socially accepted time and place? I suppose it depends upon how you look at it. I look at it as just fitting the activity to the situation, not as suppression. I find it interesting to discuss the separation of personal life from work life, and where different people draw the line. One area where I draw the line, for example, is enjoyment of erotic pictures. There are lots of things that I do not do in the office. Does that mean I am suppressing them? I don't feel suppressed by having to do certain things outside the office. The workplace enforces some rules in order to have a group of people that con work well together. For example, many office areas now have no smoking rules. The companies found that smoking affected the non-smoking members of the workforce and that smokers could smoke in designated areas or outside of work. (Hey, that's an idea! A room just for erotic pictures, just like designated smoking areas! Different rooms for different tastes! And ... :-) We all conform to certain rules in order to get along in society. I guess it is harder to conform to this rule for some than for others. I'm not advocating conforming for conformance sake. I'm just looking for a reason why it would be worth bucking this particular rule, when one can always look at these pictures privately. Perhaps Robert's speculation about trying to attract people who like the pictures, and repel those who don't, actually answers my question in the cases of those who are aware that they are bucking the "rules" of the workplace. Here's another possibility: robert> If I didn't care about offending people, I might put robert> them up as a freedom-of-speech message, and a rebellion, robert> since I don't like other people putting peer pressure on robert> me to conform to societal rules that I think are silly, robert> or declaring my sex drive to be wrong or evil. If one wants to rebel against societal norms, why pick this particular one? And if the society decides that the sex drive is best contained outside the office, does that mean that society sees it as "wrong or evil"? I don't think so. I think it just means that society has deemed it as something to be kept private, not wrong or evil. Now, certain parts of society may find sexuality wrong or evil, but that may be unrelated to the rule about keeping it private. They are not necessarily related. There is one last point in Alden's article that I want to address. alden> Perhaps your workmates hang pinups because they like them, and would alden> be happy to remove them if they thought you were offended. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting here, but it seemed to me that this is offering a solution to a situation that does not exist. I have no current workmates that are displaying such pictures. I asked the question about "why" because I have seen such pictures in the workplace in the past, I know about laws against them, and I know others are offended by them, so I was wondering about motivation. My curiosity was piqued after the "Viewing GIFs" article was posted. -- Marjorie Panditji mjm@ahimsa.intel.com -or- uunet!intelhf!ahimsa!mjm
dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.EDU (Doug Holtsinger) (06/18/91)
mjm@ahimsa.intel.com (Marjorie Panditji) writes: >Actually, my main question was, why look at these type of pictures (GIFs >or paper, for that matter) at the office? The "jerk off" comments were pure >sarcasm (even spelled it out, but some took it seriously). But I do wonder >about why people *display* these pictures *in the office* (not why people >enjoy them in the first place). Why do people play video games in the office? Why do they socialize with other people? Why do they read popular magazines in the office? Because it entertains them! People need some sort of relief from the drudgery of work while they're in the office, and for some, looking at GIFs happens to meet their requirements. >First, wouldn't such sexually arousing pictures be distracting from their >work? Sure, but when you socialize with other people at work, aren't you being distracted? People can't work constantly through the day without a break -- they'd burn out. Someone might look at these pictures occasionally as a way of re-charging their batteries :-) so that they can continue to be productive. >Second, ignoring why people want to look at them in the office, why should >people display them so that others can see them, instead of just for their >personal use? This is especially confusing since I think it is pretty >well known that these pictures can be offensive to some people and that >there are usually company guidelines about displaying these images to >prevent charges of sexual harassment. Yes you're correct, but not everyone would display them in this manner. I don't see any harm in hiding these pictures from view while other people are around, or even just displaying a small picture in your office. A friend of mine used to display a snapshot of his wife (dressed in a skimpy nighty) in his cubicle. The company did not have a policy about displaying these pictures, but if they did, he'd probably have to take the picture down. Is that the type of picture which people want to see eliminated?
fme@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (06/18/91)
In article <m0joNxx-0000YoC@intelhf.hf.intel.com>, mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) writes: > ... You might not like the rules. But if you do know the > rules, then you can't say that the pictures are just like any other > type of picture. They are treated differently. This is quite true ... but should it be this way and should we encourage the continuation of this way of thinking (destructive, IMHO) by enacting laws and regulations just to spare ourselves annoyances ? > Do you think that enjoying sexual pictures outside of work, or > privately, is suppressing one's sexual nature? Or is it just > directing it to a socially accepted time and place? I suppose it > depends upon how you look at it. I look at it as just fitting the > activity to the situation, not as suppression. Perhaps Robert feels that erotica 'fits the situation' no more or less than a coffee and danish. > I find it interesting to discuss the separation of personal life from > work life, and where different people draw the line. One area where I > draw the line, for example, is enjoyment of erotic pictures. There > are lots of things that I do not do in the office. Does that mean I > am suppressing them? I don't feel suppressed by having to do certain > things outside the office. You should be careful with this line of thought - lest we all be held hostage to the single most offendable, most inhibited person we are likely to meet that day. What do we do if say a fairly observant moslem woman joins the firm, complete with the traditional black body-bag that passes for high fashion in the mid-east - and she complains that being around all these other women dressed in common western attire makes her feel like she is working in a brothel ? Do you (a) insist that all women in the firm wear the body-bags -or- (b) Claim that majority fashion opinion rules ? Remember, if you choose option 'b' and your firm is 51% male then their majority opinion must be allowed to rule on fashion and other personal issues. If you go with option 'a' ... you will eventually enounter someone who is of the opinion that all unmarried women over the age of 19 are morally obligated to commit suicide, or even worse, are obligated to avoid employment and property ownership (encourages sinful thoughts of independence, you know) and stay home barefoot and pregnant. > The workplace enforces some rules in order to have a group of people > that con work well together. For example, many office areas now have > no smoking rules. The companies found that smoking affected the > non-smoking members of the workforce and that smokers could smoke in > designated areas or outside of work. (Hey, that's an idea! A room > just for erotic pictures, just like designated smoking areas! > Different rooms for different tastes! And ... :-) Amusing idea - but do we then designate areas for refuge against those who use brands of mouthwash others may not like the smell of - clothing others don't like the cut of, for racists, homophobes, people who like MC Hammer ??? Smoking damages some peoples membranes, perfumes give some people ashma attacks and migrains, laundry detergents or artificial fibers make some break out in hives, 'elevator music' makes some people violent ... the list goes on and on. Continual subdivision into specialty concerns is a form of 'micro-racism' and does not serve us well. Toleration until it hurts is a better approach, I think. Of course, then we get those who feel they are being called upon to tolerate more than others ... ! > If one wants to rebel against societal norms, why pick this particular > one? And if the society decides that the sex drive is best contained > outside the office, does that mean that society sees it as "wrong or > evil"? I don't think so. I think it just means that society has > deemed it as something to be kept private, not wrong or evil. Now, > certain parts of society may find sexuality wrong or evil, but that > may be unrelated to the rule about keeping it private. They are not > necessarily related. Hmmm ... I recall at least one society that deemed it best for all concerned that the annoying Jews should all just be made to disappear somewhere. Using what 'society wants' as some kind of moral authority is a sure invitation for that society to someday decide it doesn't want *you*. As I recall, 'tyranny of the majority' was quoted as far back as ancient Greece as a reason that democracies would fail. IMHO, if it's not killing you, beating you or stealing your goods - the majority should just butt-out. Among my earliest memories, from here in the southland, are recollections of people that felt that darker-colored people should sit in the back of busses and use the rear doors of a business - because the idea of them mixing with the lighter-skinned people was just too deeply offensive to bear. I dare say that a majority of people truely felt that way down to the marrow of their bones - and many still do. Why does their great discomfort rate lower than your discomfort in seeing erotica in locations other than which you choose? These kinds of questions are far from easy. Often it seems that the more you try and pin them down, develop a system, the more complex and elusive things become. -- Jim Mason -- Disclaimer : All ideas expressed are my own and may not reflect those of my employers.
klautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.EDU (BIOCHEMISTRY) (06/18/91)
In article: <m0joNxx-0000YoC@intelhf.hf.intel.com> mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) writes: robert> Perhaps, since one tends to robert> surround oneself with things that express one's personality, they put robert> it up to express an important part of themselves (why does society robert> require us to suppress our sexual nature, anyway?). >I suppose it depends upon how you look at it. >I find it interesting to discuss the separation of personal life from >work life, and where different people draw the line. One area where I >draw the line, for example, is enjoyment of erotic pictures. There >are lots of things that I do not do in the office. Does that mean I >am suppressing them? I don't feel suppressed by having to do certain >things outside the office. Since you know yourself best we believe that you are not suppressing an urge to look at erotic pictures at work. But as you say it depends on where you draw the line. For others it may be that avoiding erotica until they get home requires conscious suppression. >The workplace enforces some rules in order to have a group of people >that con work well together. For example, many office areas now have >no smoking rules. The companies found that smoking affected the >non-smoking members of the workforce and that smokers could smoke in >designated areas or outside of work. There is an important difference between smoking and erotic pictures that makes the example a weak one. Scientific evidence supports a link between second-hand smoke and a variety of smoke-related illness. As far as I know there is no causal link between erotica and an illness as smoking is to emphysema. It is still a topic of debate and there does not seem to be solid evidence linking erotica to violence against women (does the Messe Commission report count?) Do you know of any good studies? >(Hey, that's an idea! A room >just for erotic pictures, just like designated smoking areas! >Different rooms for different tastes! And ... :-) Cute idea about the DEAs (designated erotic areas) especially "And ... :-)" You won't get any resistance from me on this subject. :-) >I'm not advocating conforming for conformance sake. I'm just looking >for a reason why it would be worth bucking this particular rule, when >one can always look at these pictures privately. This is probably a variation on one of Robert's possibilities: I could see the rules as arbitrary and therefore a commitment to them would be silly. Therefore, I go ahead and break them because I see them containing little moral or legal consequence (until a lawsuit that is). I could also rationalize this activity by taking on a definition of privacy that allows viewing the pictures. For instance, I could argue that no one has a right to tell me how I want to manage my personal working space. It is not directly threatening and is not *directed* toward anyone in particular. A person taking this view would see objections to viewing GIFs as an personal attack on their privacy and "take a stand". In my conversations with some people they are surprised to learn that discrimination still has a legal basis even if they prove they meant no harm. If someone was offended by something you did or said their perceptions take precedence over your intent. This concept bothers some including me. Does this work against the spirit of "innocent until proven guilty"? In case you were wondering: No, I don't hang centerfolds by my desk or the computer equivalent. No, I don't want such pictures by my desk. >robert# If I didn't care about offending people, I might put >robert# them up as a freedom-of-speech message, and a rebellion, >robert# since I don't like other people putting peer pressure on >robert# me to conform to societal rules that I think are silly, >robert# or declaring my sex drive to be wrong or evil. >If one wants to rebel against societal norms, why pick this particular >one? Why not pick that one? Most people like sex (I hope :-)) and it is an integral part of many people's lives. Just the thought of sex can provide a pleasant temporary diversion. These thoughts could be augmented by the pictures and not necessarily vice versa. >And if the society decides that the sex drive is best contained >outside the office, does that mean that society sees it as "wrong or >evil"? I don't think so. I think it just means that society has >deemed it as something to be kept private, not wrong or evil. Now, >certain parts of society may find sexuality wrong or evil, but that >may be unrelated to the rule about keeping it private. They are not >necessarily related. Are "sex drive" and "sexuality" interchangeable in the above paragraph? If I read it correctly could: "certain expressions of sexuality" make a better substitute for these words? About sexuality and the office: My sexuality/sex drive goes wherever I go. Even if we are not consciously thinking about sex I believe there is a sexual component, however small, in our interactions with others. Stephen Klautky KLAUTKY@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
mckenney@cims18.nyu.EDU ("Alan M. McKenney") (06/18/91)
In <1991Jun13.155936.12964@aero.org>, mjm@ahimsa.intel.com (Marjorie Panditji) asks: > Actually, my main question was, why look at these type of pictures > (GIFs or paper, for that matter) at the office? The "jerk off" > comments were pure sarcasm (even spelled it out, but some took it > seriously). But I do wonder about why people *display* these pictures > *in the office* (not why people enjoy them in the first place). to which there were many replies. (Which I have not quoted.) I find it interesting that no one suggested the answer that seemed obvious to me: they are a way for the (presumeably male) person who puts them up to assert his masculinity. A lot of what goes on in all-male environments is kind of a sexual rivalry, men (acting more like teen-age boys) implying that they are "getting it", or at least want it. (Think of all the men you see wearing the Playboy logo.) It's a kind of "Political Correctness": a guy who indicated that he wasn't interested would be in danger of being called queer or wierd, or at least be afraid of it. And although I say "all-male environment", any environment where a number of men are present can bring the behavior out. I can recall calendars put out by companies marketing stuff to the "blue collar" trade which have a minimally clothed young woman (with what could be considered a "come-hither" look) holding one of the company's products. The example that comes to mind is Rigid (!), a maker of pipe and conduit hardware and tools. I also recall seeing such calendars, as well as posters, at auto repair shops and parts stores. Such posters aren't really directed at any women that go there, they are directed at the men. It's a kind of proof of the men's masculinity, or a reminder of what they are supposed to consider important. They generally don't do it to intimidate whatever women may wander through. (But see below.) Now I don't know what sort of workplace Marjorie has, and I don't know the co-workers who post these pictures. Certainly there is a stereotype that computer programmers are not as "manly" as other men -- you don't hear of NFL football players being called "football geeks", and the term "jock" does not cast any aspersions on one's masculinity. If these co-worker did grow up having their masculinity challenged and doubted, as some people do who later go on to computer jobs, then they might feel the need to post erotic pictures to reassure themselves of their own masculinity. Although I wrote that the posters are not (usually) intended to intimidate women, I can understand why they might be intimidating to women. Even though in most such situations none of the men will try to intimidate a woman who comes by, sometimes a man will feel insecure enough that he feels he has to prove his masculinity by being sexually aggressive. Sometimes a comment is enough, sometimes not. Usually his friends or co-workers will say "knock it off", but you never know. If it sounds like it is familiar to me, even though I am a man, it is because it is. As a child, I was not very good at fighting back, and sometimes a boy would feel he had to prove he was tough by picking a fight with me. If I was lucky, the group he was with would tell him to knock it off, and he would feel he had proved his point by talking tough. It wasn't to me that he wanted to prove his toughness, it was to himself and his friends. Alan McKenney E-mail: mckenney@cs.nyu.edu (INTERNET) Courant Institute,NYU ...!cmcl2!cs.nyu.edu!mckenney (UUCP)
jan@oas.olivetti.COM (Jan Parcel) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun16.230844.210@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> fme@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: >In article <m0joNxx-0000YoC@intelhf.hf.intel.com>, mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) writes: >> ... You might not like the rules. But if you do know the >> rules, then you can't say that the pictures are just like any other >> type of picture. They are treated differently. > >This is quite true ... but should it be this way and should we >encourage the continuation of this way of thinking (destructive, IMHO) >by enacting laws and regulations just to spare ourselves annoyances ? >These kinds of questions are far from easy. Often it seems that the >more you try and pin them down, develop a system, the more complex and >elusive things become. {good points deleted -- after all, this is Usenet! >-] } I have two concerns here -- one is to point out that, at least in the U.S., it has long been customary to avoid three subjects in "polite" society outside of friendships and family. Sex, politics, and religion. Secondly, some workers use erotica as part of an overall harrassment pattern (although I have never worked in a place where that is true. When I overhear engineers saying "Wow! Sexy" it always turns out to be chip specifications they are looking at) When we combine these, it makes everything a close call. How many of those who support the right to display erotical would feel comfortable holding small conferences in the office of someone who has "Jesus Saves" posters all over their office? What about strongly-worded political posters? Stuff about Willie Horton, or likening your favorite political party to your least-favorite historical movement? I've felt for some time that if there were just some nice ways to get even, perhaps the objections to potentially-harrassing wall goodies would diminish. Unless some principle can be applied to distinguish between the two, employers have to choose between allowing psychological warfare in the workplace vs. suppression of freedom of expression. Personally, I'd like to see some really creative and harmless revenge tactics (akin to calling anyone "poopsie" when they call you "honey") that would restore the balance of power so that a truce could take effect. This applies to religious and political pressure as well as sexual. Creative revenge, anyone? ~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com or jan@oas.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We must worship Universal Consciousness as each of the 5 genders in turn if we wish to be fully open to Yr glory. -- St. Xyphlb of Alpha III
mann@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Mann) (06/20/91)
I have been following the comments about nude & semi-nude pictures in
the workplace and feel a need to comment on all this.
I am a professional mechanic and, as we all know, mechanics get calendars
with pictures of women in various stages of undress from every tool vendor
in the business. I personally have nothing against these calendars
(I might even enjoy them) but > THEY ARE BAD BUSINESS <. I am in the
trade to make money not to look at pictures or work on cars. For this
reason, no 'calendar girls', no 'beefcake', no music that might offend
a customer, no smoking in customer cars, don't mess with the hi-fi
equipment in cars, ad nauseum.
To me, the question of 'morality' or taste is totally irrelevant.
When you are at work, your only aim should be to produce revenue for
yourself and your employer. If you need to do something to 'recharge'
the system, do it on your own time but
>DON'T DO ANYTHING TO OFFEND A CUSTOMER OR PRODUCTIVE WORKER<
while you are on my time. I like my customers and I want to see them
back. I also value good workers and don't want to loose one because
someone feels a need to display material that may be offensive.
If that means no pictures of any sort, no music, no smoking (I am
a smoker), fine.
OK, I'll get off my soapbox. I just felt a need to comment that when
you are at work, the only thing that counts is keeping the revenue
up (and having fun doing it while offending the fewest possible
people) is what the 'workplace' is all about.fme@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (06/20/91)
In article <49662@ricerca.UUCP>, jan@oas.olivetti.COM (Jan Parcel) writes: > Secondly, some workers use erotica as part of an overall harrassment > pattern (although I have never worked in a place where that is true. > When I overhear engineers saying "Wow! Sexy" it always turns out to > be chip specifications they are looking at) "Harrassment pattern" ... Hmmm, I'm not sure that the offending individuals actually *intend* it as such - no hatefullness in it at all. Ever seen the male peacock do its thing ? Surrounding ones self with erotica is somewhat akin to a non-specific invitation to sex, a mating display. Now, if some kind of hostilities break-out over such displays, the situation may indeed move towards true, intentional harrassment and intimidation. A modicum of both courtesy and tolerance on everyones part can do wonders towards reducing escelation. > When we combine these, it makes everything a close call. How many of > those who support the right to display erotical would feel comfortable > holding small conferences in the office of someone who has "Jesus > Saves" posters all over their office? What about strongly-worded > political posters? Stuff about Willie Horton, or likening your > favorite political party to your least-favorite historical movement? Hardcore religious fanatics and racists are prone to plastering their propaganda everywhere - and I agree that it makes me feel somewhat intimidated ... especially remembering that these sorts of factions have a history of burning their opponents at the stake. > I've felt for some time that if there were just some nice ways to get > even, perhaps the objections to potentially-harrassing wall goodies > would diminish. Unless some principle can be applied to distinguish > between the two, employers have to choose between allowing > psychological warfare in the workplace vs. suppression of freedom of > expression. > > Personally, I'd like to see some really creative and harmless revenge > tactics (akin to calling anyone "poopsie" when they call you "honey") > that would restore the balance of power so that a truce could take > effect. This applies to religious and political pressure as well as > sexual. Insofar as males go ... calling them "Shorty" when they call you "honey" would probably be more effective than "poopsie". If they are forcing erotica at you from all sides ... you might imply that the photos are about the hottest action they usually get. The more 'studley' they act, the more insecure about their studliness they probably are - and that gives one a powerful weapon against harrassment (just avoid the equivalent of atomic bombs though). -- Jim Mason -- Disclaimer : All ideas expressed are my own and may not reflect those of my employers.
robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (06/21/91)
mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) writes:
-Thank you, Alden Gannon and Robert Coleman (and others, but I want to
-respond to them in particular), for discussing this topic in a more
-intellectual and polite fashion than most (especially some of my
-mail!).
Gosh. You're welcome!
-Here are some further thoughts of mine on the subject.
-Several people have mentioned that, in many cases, people don't
-realize that these posters are offensive to some. They may also be
-ignorant of company guidelines or of potential legal consequences. I
-guess I didn't factor this in. I thought more people were educated
-about workplace guidelines on this subject.
-Several people have also mentioned that these pictures are simply
-reflective of what people like, and are no different from any other
-type of picture. Ah, but society (the workplace, in this case) has
-decided that they are a different type of picture. There are
-guidelines against these type of pictures, but not against, say,
-landscapes. You might not like the rules. But if you do know the
-rules, then you can't say that the pictures are just like any other
-type of picture. They are treated differently.
When I expressed the idea, I meant that they were no different
from other types of pictures *to me*. You were asking for a statement
from my point of view. I'm aware of how society views them, but I
don't necessarily think society is entirely sane. :-)
-Robert, in his list of reasons why to display these pictures in the
-office (great list! but which reasons do you think are more common?),
-comes up with an interesting followup question of his own.
-robert> Perhaps, since one tends to
-robert> surround oneself with things that express one's personality, they put
-robert> it up to express an important part of themselves (why does society
-robert> require us to suppress our sexual nature, anyway?).
-Do you think that enjoying sexual pictures outside of work, or
-privately, is suppressing one's sexual nature? Or is it just
-directing it to a socially accepted time and place? I suppose it
-depends upon how you look at it. I look at it as just fitting the
-activity to the situation, not as suppression.
I am what I am, and part of me is sexual in nature. The
pictures are just a small part of a general environment where I must
come to work and pretend that I have no sexual element to my
personality.
Is this a great burden, as opposed to directing it to a
socially accepted time and place? No, not really. Mildly annoying.
Is it suppressing one's sexual nature? Sure. For a while, we pretend
that we're robots. It's not a lot of fun pretending to be something
you're not, though society requires that in a lot of circumstances.
Let's pretend that society had a little more stringent rules.
Say, one didn't express one's sexual nature *at all* unless one were
in a bed with a married partner and in a proper missionary position,
between the hours of 9:00 and 11:00 at night. With the lights off.
:-) Would society have defined some accepted time and place? Sure.
Would you feel like your sexuality was being suppressed at other times
and places? This is the way it was, not too long ago, in an era we've
now labelled "repressive".
-I find it interesting to discuss the separation of personal life from
-work life, and where different people draw the line. One area where I
-draw the line, for example, is enjoyment of erotic pictures. There
-are lots of things that I do not do in the office. Does that mean I
-am suppressing them? I don't feel suppressed by having to do certain
-things outside the office.
Look, it's not a very big deal, but it is annoying. Let's say
you were a dancer, and you wanted to put some pictures of ballet
dancers on your wall for decoration. Now the boss comes in, says she
doesn't like ballet and these are distracting, so take them down.
Well, it's no big deal, you can work there without those pictures, but
it's kind of annoying. (BTW, I've danced ballet, so it's not a sexist
example, OK? :-) )
Or suppose the company has a policy of no family pictures at
work. In fact, no discussion of your family is allowed at work. You
can live without those, but why? Why should you have to pretend you
don't have a family while at work? You're a human being, you probably
have family, it's an important part of you, and if you pretend you
don't have family you're three screws closer to being a robot.
Different people are more or less annoyed at having to
suppress different things. What's easy for you may be less easy
for someone else. I'm sure, if you thought hard enough, you
could think of something you can do now at work, like a passing
joke with a co-worker, for instance, that if you weren't allowed
to do it at work, would leave you with the feeling of being
suppressed.
-Here's another possibility:
-robert> If I didn't care about offending people, I might put
-robert> them up as a freedom-of-speech message, and a rebellion,
-robert> since I don't like other people putting peer pressure on
-robert> me to conform to societal rules that I think are silly,
-robert> or declaring my sex drive to be wrong or evil.
-If one wants to rebel against societal norms, why pick this particular
-one?
Well, for those that do for this reason, I'm sure that
there are thousands of other people who are battling other silly
societal rules. If there are people who like to battle silly
societal rules, some of them are going to end up battling this one,
right? Or perhaps they battle all silly societal rules at once.
Or maybe they just drew this one out of a hat. :-)
-And if the society decides that the sex drive is best contained
-outside the office, does that mean that society sees it as "wrong or
-evil"? I don't think so. I think it just means that society has
-deemed it as something to be kept private, not wrong or evil. Now,
-certain parts of society may find sexuality wrong or evil, but that
-may be unrelated to the rule about keeping it private. They are not
-necessarily related.
I don't know. Used to be, men weren't supposed to cry in
public. That was shameful. Back when sex wasn't supposed to be
talked about or admitted, women weren't supposed to be in public
while they were pregnant. It was shameful. I think the things
society demands you do in private are things that society is
ashamed of. Wrong or evil? Maybe too harsh words, but things that
society approves of it doesn't relegate to the back rooms.
Fact is, I'm not supposed to carry my sexuality around with
me. Yet I do. I don't force it on other people, but it's there.
Society considers this wrong, therefore, I must be bad. That's the
message I get...and I really don't think I'm bad. :-(
Robert C.
--
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.jan@oas.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun19.112726.215@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> fme@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: >In article <49662@ricerca.UUCP>, jan@oas.olivetti.COM (Jan Parcel) writes: > >> Secondly, some workers use erotica as part of an overall harrassment >> pattern (although I have never worked in a place where that is true. >> When I overhear engineers saying "Wow! Sexy" it always turns out to >> be chip specifications they are looking at) > > "Harrassment pattern" ... Hmmm, I'm not sure that the offending > individuals actually *intend* it as such - no hatefullness in > it at all. Ever seen the male peacock do its thing ? Surrounding > ones self with erotica is somewhat akin to a non-specific > invitation to sex, a mating display. Now, if some kind of > hostilities break-out over such displays, the situation may > indeed move towards true, intentional harrassment and > intimidation. A modicum of both courtesy and tolerance on > everyones part can do wonders towards reducing escelation. Notice I said "some." I am referring to some well-publicised cases where women (usually in blue-collar jobs) are sworn at, fondled when their hands are full, given late-night phone calls threatening them with rape, and then up go a number of really raunchy posters. In these cases, the men, if asked or called on it, will claim that there is no intentional harm in the posters, and I don't buy it. Once real harrassment starts, it is time to clean the whole place up. GIF's have never figured in these cases that I know of, possibly because the office environment, unlike the construction environments or heavy factories, have *always* had women present since male secretaries went out of fashion, and the guys are not trying to make *all* women go away. ~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com or jan@oas.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We must worship Universal Consciousness as each of the 5 genders in turn if we wish to be fully open to Yr glory. -- St. Xyphlb of Alpha III