Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!down!eosp1!robison
From: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Penthouse/Miss America
Message-ID: <1047@eosp1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Aug-84 12:54:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: eosp1.1047
Posted: Tue Aug  7 12:54:45 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Aug-84 19:47:43 EDT
Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton, NJ
Lines: 30

References:


>  	So far, I have only seen one comment on this subject that really
>  addresses the issue and that was by Sherry Marts.  Both these organizations
>  are in the business of exploiting women and I think it is kind of
>  pointless to argue over which one has the right to exploit V Williams.

The Miss America Pageant paid Miss Williams for the privilege of
exploiting her in a manner that was acceptable to her.

Penthouse is exploiting her in a way that she claims is unacceptable
and embarassing to her.  Whether we are considering the "Women's
exploitation" business, the ad business, the moving van business,
Cosa Nostra or personal computers, I think we should still try to
distinguish between companies that ride roughshod over the
considerations of people they deal with, and companies that do not.

The Miss America Pageant was widely criticized for their handling of
Vanessa Williams, but it's hard to believe that anything they did to
her will mark her for life in the way that those pictures, published
against her will, may.

I'm not arguing about who has the right to exploit Vanessa Williams;
I'm concerned about what we can do to companies as insensitive
and (I hope) illegally-acting as Penthouse.

- Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
allegra!eosp1!robison
decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison