Student teachers strip to promote charity fashion show

Catari Jaguar

bcos224 wrote: »

What really baffles me is the number of comments regarding how "seedy" the photos are. The girls were wearing BIKINIS, yno, those things just about every girl in her late teens or early twenties wears every summer at the beach.. So I dont think it can be claimed that they were too revealing, the time of year doesnt affect what clothing makes you a decent human being..

The metro picture was a bit wtf for me. Purely because of the tack/ cringe element. The indoor bikini "tasteful" shots were worse imo, and seedy because of the poses and expressions that were used. Especially the one where it looks like the clothes are fading away. I half expected to clock the next pic and them be in the nip, that's the intention of the photo. The pic of 3 girls together, in their bikini casually touching is a bit too ZOO mag.
The smiley pictures aren't too bad.

bcos224 wrote: »

Secondly, this shoot was done for charity, and I guarantee that fashion show will sell every last ticket.. I dont know if any of the posters above who criticised the event have tried raising money for charity lately, but I have, and its tough, the "bake sales" and "buckets" just dont work anymore.

Froebel College of Ed go to Nairobi or Calcutta every year to teach. The group raises €12 - 15k every year through street collection, bag packing, sponsored waxes, car washing, themed nights etc. It can be done.

AnnyHallsal

cherub rock wrote: »

There is no equality law/ rights in the hiring/ firing of primary school teachers. This comes down to religion (protestant not hired for catholic school) but has spread to colour, gender, orientation and even things like being pregnant in an interview but not wearing a wedding band. It's sickeningly backwards.

Then this is wrong.

cherub rock wrote: »

Worse still, I hope to god that none of those girls ends up teaching in a school where some smart mouth kid has seen the picture and tries to push it with a cheeky "Show us your knickers, Miss" or something. They really left themselves wide open here and haven't the experience or knowledge yet in how to deal with a situation like that in class. It could be detrimental to their TP grade.

Highly unlikely. Will a bunch of primary school kids care? Young female teachers with the highest moral standards would not be immune to similar comments from a child with such a fixation, anyway.

cherub rock wrote: »

I think that's also embarrassing and inappropriate and will set tongues wagging in the yard. Why the obsession with stripping of Pat's?? Why?!

Whose tongues? The students'? Their fellow teachers and parents? Given all appear so easily offended, I don't think trying to conform to their conservative ideals is desirable.

You're right essentially. The whole primary school area is enveloped with outdated prurience and is ridiculously judgemental. That needs to change.

Catari Jaguar

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Sure so what if a few of them might be interested in modelling?

Nothing wrong with that at all. They're pretty girls. It's just that a lad from Pat's was on here saying they were taken advantage of, didn't know it'd be in the paper, are mortified, weren't looking for attention or model contracts.

That's clearly a bull**** after story.

AnnyHallsal

cherub rock wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that at all. They're pretty girls. It's just that a lad from Pat's was on here saying they were taken advantage of, didn't know it'd be in the paper, are mortified, weren't looking for attention or model contracts.

That's clearly a bull**** after story.

Yeah, I see what you mean. There's an impulse by those who want to defend them to portray them as victims.

ztoical

NickDrake wrote: »

Your comment about in not being in the workplace - then why are they stating they are teachers and making sure they mention they are on the radio this morning??.

It never said they were teachers it said they were students studying to be teachers....there's a massive amount of difference there.

NickDrake wrote: »

Also, teaching is a different profession to a fireman in fairness now. A teacher needs to be a lot more responsible in their behaviour.

Again they are students not working teachers. Also I don't see a difference between a fireman or a teacher in this case. Both have jobs that invole them having to work directly with the public. If a fireman turned up at my door to rescue me from a fire I wouldn't care what they did in their own time as long as they're good at their job and same goes for a teacher. I'm going to care more about what sort of results her students are getting in her class when I consider sending my child [granted this is my make believe child] then what she gets up to outside of the classroom. If they were working as teachers I could get were people are coming from and students and/or parents might not be impressed with the photos appearing in the paper but they are students not currently working teachers and both the college and Crumlin hospital are mentioned and I haven't seen a link yet to either of them distancing thenseleves from this group of students and their actions.

Catari Jaguar

ztoical wrote: »

It never said they were teachers it said they were students studying to be teachers....there's a massive amount of difference there.



Again they are students not working teachers. Also I don't see a difference between a fireman or a teacher in this case. Both have jobs that invole them having to work directly with the public. If a fireman turned up at my door to rescue me from a fire I wouldn't care what they did in their own time as long as they're good at their job and same goes for a teacher. I'm going to care more about what sort of results her students are getting in her class when I consider sending my child [granted this is my make believe child] then what she gets up to outside of the classroom. If they were working as teachers I could get were people are coming from and students and/or parents might not be impressed with the photos appearing in the paper but they are students not currently working teachers and both the college and Crumlin hospital are mentioned and I haven't seen a link yet to either of them distancing thenseleves from this group of students and their actions.

Yea but they are representing teachers and the link has already been made in the fact that they are being called teachers in some reports and by some posters.

Many posters here have no idea how much the school owns you and the level of professionalism a teacher has to have in regards to their actions/ appearance. We're talking obvious ones like no visible tattoos, extreme hair dyes, body piercings, no midriff/ cleavage/ shoulders on display but in some cases: no jeans/ runners!

I dress quite rockery when I'm out of school and I want to duck and hide when I run into parents/ kids when I'm with my boyf and I have a slouchy Pantera hoodie & dark eye make up on! Christ, I'd be mortified if I ran into them at the beach in my bikini or at a nightclub in a skimpy dress.

There are too many Dads that fancy their kid's teachers as it is, no point in feeding the fantasy!

NickDrake

ztoical wrote: »

It never said they were teachers it said they were students studying to be teachers....there's a massive amount of difference there.



Again they are students not working teachers. Also I don't see a difference between a fireman or a teacher in this case. Both have jobs that invole them having to work directly with the public. If a fireman turned up at my door to rescue me from a fire I wouldn't care what they did in their own time as long as they're good at their job and same goes for a teacher. I'm going to care more about what sort of results her students are getting in her class when I consider sending my child [granted this is my make believe child] then what she gets up to outside of the classroom. If they were working as teachers I could get were people are coming from and students and/or parents might not be impressed with the photos appearing in the paper but they are students not currently working teachers and both the college and Crumlin hospital are mentioned and I haven't seen a link yet to either of them distancing thenseleves from this group of students and their actions.

Students who WILL be teachers in a year or too. So if a male teacher was stripping off for the papers and going on the radio boasting about it was teaching your children, would it matter??

Its just like if women want to be treated seriously then this behaviour is not helping. This behaviour was something of the past. Women felt they need to act sexy/ take clothes off to get positions in a company etc. I thought women were looking to distance themselves for this??

Am I wrong?

AnnyHallsal

cherub rock wrote: »

I dress quite rockery when I'm out of school and I want to duck and hide when I run into parents/ kids when I'm with my boyf and I have a slouchy Pantera hoodie & dark eye make up on!

That's sad - f*ck them, be yourself. Do all teachers have to be identikit Mammys now?

cherub rock wrote: »

There are too many Dads that fancy their kid's teachers as it is, no point in feeding the fantasy!

They'll fancy them anyway. This won't make a blind bit of difference.

ztoical

NickDrake wrote: »

Students who WILL be teachers in a year or too. So if a male teacher was stripping off for the papers and going on the radio boasting about it was teaching your children, would it matter???

If a male student teacher stripped to his boxers for charity? No it would not matter - compare like with like.
If a male teacher who was teaching my make believe child stripped to his boxers for charity? No it would not matter. Now I'll get a bunch of the 'if you really had children you'd think different' crowd in but I know me and I know my focus would be are kids coming out of that class with a good grades, the course work covered for that year and are general moving onto to the next year in a positive manner. What happens out side doesn't bother me. We had two male teachers in my secondary school get dressed up in drag for an Xmas charity event one year, I honestly don't see this as any different.

If they were stripping for money/other reasons? Yes maybe, context plays a big part.

NickDrake wrote: »

I just like if women want to be treated seriously then this behaviour is not helping. This behaviour was something of the past. Women felt they need to act sexy/ take clothes off to get positions in a company etc. I though women were looking to distance themselves for this??

Am I wrong?

They weren't doing it to get ahead in work, it was something for charity, if anything, going by post on this thread, they've total runined any chance of furture careers they may have had.

Wolfe Tone

Seen as we are rolling back the years here I guess we better adopt another mindset of a bygone era and not let gays teach as they are of questionable morals?

NickDrake

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Seen as we are rolling back the years here I guess we better adopt another mindset of a bygone era and not let gays teach as they are of questionable morals?

Now THAT is off topic.

My arguement is - When I was in college my female classmates and housemates would argue that women should not be treated like sex objects etc anymore and should now be taken seriously as they act just as professional as men. I totally agree.

but

Now it seems to me this group of women have acted very unprofessionally considering their potential profession. They even went of the radio anf boasted about it. A group of future teachers stripping in a group in Dublin city centre is pretty stupid if you ask me.

Catari Jaguar

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Seen as we are rolling back the years here I guess we better adopt another mindset of a bygone era and not let gays teach as they are of questionable morals?

That's got nothing to do with the topic at hand & you're baiting...

Wolfe Tone

It is perfectly relevant actually. Here we have posters saying that the women are like whores, have no self respect and morals, and I am pretty sure I saw tramp in there too.

They also do not want the kids to be thought by the teachers for those reasons.

As long as the teacher is a good teacher it shouldn't bloody matter what they did when they were in college.

ztoical

NickDrake wrote: »

Now it seems to me this group of women have acted very unprofessionally considering their potential profession. They even went of the radio anf boasted about it. A group of future teachers stripping in a group in Dublin city centre is pretty stupid if you ask me.

The keyword there is 'potential', potential profession - they are not teachers no matter how many times people mention them and the word teacher together. Their current profession if asked to list it on a forum would be 'student' and lets face it when it comes to doing stupid things without thinkin students are the masters regardless of gender.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think it is really sad people think the girls shouldn't be teachers over this. They're so young, it wouldn't raise an eyebrow outside Ireland and Britain.

It wouldn't raise an eyebrow if it were men in this country. Would be all ''ah fair play to the lads, they're such good sports etc...''

To the feminists ranting about this(and I'm aware there are feminists who have no problem with it;)).

Why does this really bother you? Do you feel it degrades women? IF so...why? It's not exactly big business exploiting vulnerable women its a children's hospital.
I can see how initially it causes a reaction of ''oh here we go, girl in paper because she has a sexy body'' but really isn't that going too far? Sure stereotypical gender roles need to smashed but that doesn't mean we should take away the freedom to choose as individuals.

minimissireland wrote:

Hi all,

On the night there will be a Cat Walk set up in Coppers for us to use. We will have 26 girls each representing one County. You do not have to be from a certain county to represent that county.

Pfft 26... west Brit alert

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Seen as we are rolling back the years here I guess we better adopt another mindset of a bygone era and not let gays teach as they are of questionable morals?

Isn't that the current policy? . .. ''well our school has a certain ethoos''

Catari Jaguar

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It is perfectly relevant actually. Here we have posters saying that the women are like whores, have no self respect and morals, and I am pretty sure I saw tramp in there too.

Are you implying that gays are whorish tramps with no self respect or morals??

There is no link.

RedXIV

cherub rock wrote: »

Are you implying that gays are whorish tramps with no self respect or morals??

There is no link.

You're implying the girls above are though.....

Wolfe Tone

cherub rock wrote: »

Are you implying that gays are whorish tramps with no self respect or morals??

There is no link.

The link is that to hold that position about gays, or women, or whatever is outdated and belongs in the past.


Actually BOS I went to a former Christian brothers school, the bishop was the head of the board and there were a few gay teachers there.

ztoical

cherub rock wrote: »

Are you implying that gays are whorish tramps with no self respect or morals??

There is no link.

So based just on the photos posted you would judge those girls as tramps with no self respect or morals?

Good friend is gay and a teacher [secondary not primary] and has been on telly in drag for the Pride parade in Dublin.....should he be judged as a tramp for that and removed from his job?

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Pfft 26... west Brit alert

Off topic I know but yes 26, I'm certainly no Brit and I would say 26....last I checked northern Ireland was a different country or did I miss a major political shake up?

Catari Jaguar

RedXIV wrote: »

You're implying the girls above are though.....

I didn't but I can see the point of the posters that did. Maybe if the gays were taking their clothes off and parading around you could compare but they aren't so it has nothing to do with this topic.

I know nothing about these girls, but from being in a teacher training college I do know that student teachers love to drink, party and sleep around. Go to Coppers and see for yourself. Much like any other student really... It's your personal life - it's no one's business but when you make it their business by putting yourself in the public eye in this way then people will talk.

People expect teachers to be superhuman moral upstanding pillars of community. They think they have a right to your personal life. Heck, most of the time the don't realise that you even exist outside the classroom. I don't know why this is. But it is. So expect some shocked, negative reactions to parading around in your cacks.

Wolfe Tone

I do know that students teachers love to drink, party and sleep around. Go to Coppers and see for yourself

Uber generalizations are the order of the day then?

ztoical

cherub rock wrote: »

I didn't but I can see the point of the posters that did. Maybe if the gays were taking their clothes off and parading around you could compare but they aren't so it has nothing to do with this topic.

Have you ever been to a Gay Pride celebration?

Silverfish

I'm not sure if the previous warning was not clear, but any more referring to these women as 'tramps' 'whores' etc will be met with a ban.

Kooli

cherub rock wrote: »

I didn't but I can see the point of the posters that did. Maybe if the gays were taking their clothes off and parading around you could compare but they aren't so it has nothing to do with this topic.

I know nothing about these girls, but from being in a teacher training college I do know that student teachers love to drink, party and sleep around. Go to Coppers and see for yourself. Much like any other student really... It's your personal life - it's no one's business but when you make it their business by putting yourself in the public eye in this way then people will talk.

People expect teachers to be superhuman moral upstanding pillars of community. They think they have a right to your personal life. Heck, most of the time the don't realise that you even exist outside the classroom. I don't know why this is. But it is. So expect some shocked, negative reactions to parading around in your cacks.

It's not that people expect them to be superhuman. And if I had kids I certainly wouldn't say I would refuse to have them taught by one of those girls.

BUT...if I had a little girl, I would ideally like her to be taught by someone who believes that the objectification of women is wrong. I would like her to be taught by someone who doesn't agree with the CONSTANT portrayal of women in the media as sexual playthings, regardless of their qualifications, intelligence or jobs. These women obviously don't hold those beliefs at all, and that saddens me. They are absolutely fine with being judged on their looks alone. I know they wouldn't explicitly discuss these beliefs with their primary school kids, but kids are very adept at picking up messages from the people around them even in the most subtle ways.

For me it's not about stopping anyone from doing anything. But I will hopefully be teaching my daughters they don't ever need to pose in their underwear for photos that will be seen by the public, and I would ideally like them to be getting the same message in school.

Of all the women I know who are genuinely intelligent, confident and have high self-esteem, I can't imagine any of them ever doing anything like this, no matter how rocking their bodies are! Surely that says something?

NickDrake

Kooli wrote: »

It's not that people expect them to be superhuman. And if I had kids I certainly wouldn't say I would refuse to have them taught by one of those girls.

BUT...if I had a little girl, I would ideally like her to be taught by someone who believes that the objectification of women is wrong. I would like her to be taught by someone who doesn't agree with the CONSTANT portrayal of women in the media as sexual playthings, regardless of their qualifications, intelligence or jobs. These women obviously don't hold those beliefs at all, and that saddens me. They are absolutely fine with being judged on their looks alone. I know they wouldn't explicitly discuss these beliefs with their primary school kids, but kids are very adept at picking up messages from the people around them even in the most subtle ways.

For me it's not about stopping anyone from doing anything. But I will hopefully be teaching my daughters they don't ever need to pose in their underwear for photos that will be seen by the public, and I would ideally like them to be getting the same message in school.

Of all the women I know who are genuinely intelligent, confident and have high self-esteem, I can't imagine any of them ever doing anything like this, no matter how rocking their bodies are! Surely that says something?

Exactly. Well put. Women want to be treated professionally but stripping off for attention and boasting on the radio about it is not somthing they should be doing.

I cannot imagine a group of male student teachers behaving like this.

Catari Jaguar

Just because you call something a generalisation doesn't make it true. I too, know girls like these. So if a lad comes on and says they're great teachers & totally moral that's not a generalisation but if say I know many, many girls like this and have witnessed their behvaiour in places like Coppers (again I haven't disapproved of it - just stating & saying it's their business and doesn't affect their ability teach) it's a generalisation. Gotcha!

I'm not getting into anything gay related because it's 100% off topic.

This thread has just proved most male posters = okay with female students pictured in underwear. And some guys will jump down the throats of any female poster that isn't. Massive shocker.

Bottle_of_Smoke

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Actually BOS I went to a former Christian brothers school, the bishop was the head of the board and there were a few gay teachers there.

Aye there's definitely been massive improvement but still some claims of discrimination. Though admittedly it was a bit sensationalist of me to put it that way/

ztoical wrote: »

Off topic I know but yes 26, I'm certainly no Brit and I would say 26....last I checked northern Ireland was a different country or did I miss a major political shake up?

West Brits are Irish, its a derogatory term for people who go along unobjectingly to the partition of Ireland. Was meant as a joke in that post.

AnnyHallsal

Kooli wrote: »

It's not that people expect them to be superhuman. And if I had kids I certainly wouldn't say I would refuse to have them taught by one of those girls.

BUT...if I had a little girl, I would ideally like her to be taught by someone who believes that the objectification of women is wrong. I would like her to be taught by someone who doesn't agree with the CONSTANT portrayal of women in the media as sexual playthings, regardless of their qualifications, intelligence or jobs. These women obviously don't hold those beliefs at all, and that saddens me. They are absolutely fine with being judged on their looks alone. I know they wouldn't explicitly discuss these beliefs with their primary school kids, but kids are very adept at picking up messages from the people around them even in the most subtle ways.

For me it's not about stopping anyone from doing anything. But I will hopefully be teaching my daughters they don't ever need to pose in their underwear for photos that will be seen by the public, and I would ideally like them to be getting the same message in school.

Of all the women I know who are genuinely intelligent, confident and have high self-esteem, I can't imagine any of them ever doing anything like this, no matter how rocking their bodies are! Surely that says something?

I wouldn't like my child to be taught by someone who thinks that you can judge someone's morals from their clothing, that a skimpily girl dressed is morally inferior, and should be rejected by the community.

WalterMitty

jaysis , you'd see more skin on a beach on a sunny summer day. So backwards in this country for this to warrant such debate. No nipples,no bums, not even much cleavage. Grow up Ireland.

ztoical

Kooli wrote: »

Of all the women I know who are genuinely intelligent, confident and have high self-esteem, I can't imagine any of them ever doing anything like this, no matter how rocking their bodies are! Surely that says something?

Again I say a person is smart, people are stupid.

Catari Jaguar

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Pfft 26... west Brit alert

I know you're joking but they don't learn Gaeilge at school in the other 6 counties. You can't get into teacher training college without a C in higher LC Gaeilge so it makes sense that the 6 wouldn't be represented by someone from there

Kooli

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I wouldn't like my child to be taught by someone who thinks that you can judge someone's morals from their clothing, that a skimpily girl dressed is morally inferior, and should be rejected by the community.

I actually never mentioned their morals, and never suggested anything about rejection from the community!! Easy there!!

You cannot judge their morals from their clothing. Of course you can't. You can however make a pretty good guess at their beliefs about the issue of women stripping down to their underwear for everyone to see. That's not really a huge leap.

ztoical

cherub rock wrote: »

This thread has just proved male posters = okay with female students pictured in underwear and will jump down the throats of any female poster that isn't. Massive shocker.

Would just like to point out that I'm female.

Bottle_of_Smoke

cherub rock wrote: »

This thread has just proved male posters = okay with female students pictured in underwear and will jump down the throats of any female poster that isn't. Massive shocker.

Oh the victim card gets pulled. If you read the thread you'll see the female posters sympathizing with these girls far outnumber the men. There's also nothing about your name that indicates you're a female poster.

Bottle_of_Smoke

cherub rock wrote: »

I know you're joking but they don't learn Gaeilge at school in the other 6 counties. You can't get into teacher training college without a C in higher LC Gaeilge so it makes sense that the 6 wouldn't be represented by someone from there

They do in Catholic schools and it can be studied at A level. St Pats recognise this for entry purposes.

AnnyHallsal

Kooli wrote: »

I actually never mentioned their morals, and never suggested anything about rejection from the community!! Easy there!!

You cannot judge their morals from their clothing. Of course you can't. You can however make a pretty good guess at their beliefs about the issue of women stripping down to their underwear for everyone to see. That's not really a huge leap.

You didn't - but many posters here have equated the girls' actions with promiscuity. Much of the furore begins with looking at the girls and making moral judgements.

I appreciate your point but I don't think that's why other posters have objected to those involved as future teachers of their children.

My point is that I would prefer my daughter to accept the skantily clad and the clad alike as women deserving of her respect, kindness and understanding.

Kooli

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Oh the victim card gets pulled. If you read the thread you'll see the female posters sympathizing with these girls far outnumber the men. There's also nothing about your name that indicates you're a female poster.

She never said they didn't. She said that male posters are in the main OK with it and will jump down the throat of the female posters who aren't. That for me seems pretty accurate. It doesn't presuppose that there no female posters who support these girls at all.

Corsendonk

Sardonicat wrote: »

Yes, I would. They are teachers to be, and taking part in something like this, under the banner of "student teachers" is inappropriate. Does every little thing, including a children's hospital charity, have to be sexualised now?

If they were mature lady teachers in there late 40s-50s would you have the same reaction?

NickDrake

cherub rock wrote: »

Just because you call something a generalisation doesn't make it true. I too, know girls like these. So if a lad comes on and says they're great teachers & totally moral that's not a generalisation but if say I know many, many girls like this and have witnessed their behvaiour in places like Coppers (again I haven't disapproved of it - just stating & saying it's their business and doesn't affect their ability teach) it's a generalisation. Gotcha!

I'm not getting into anything gay related because it's 100% off topic.

This thread has just proved male posters = okay with female students pictured in underwear and will jump down the throats of any female poster that isn't. Massive shocker.

I am male and I am stating that the students were wrong in their behaviour

Kooli

WalterMitty wrote: »

jaysis , you'd see more skin on a beach on a sunny summer day. So backwards in this country for this to warrant such debate. No nipples,no bums, not even much cleavage. Grow up Ireland.

Well I for one am SO glad that it still promotes debate!!


I dread the day when this doesn't even cause us to bat an eyelid.

RedXIV

Kooli wrote: »

Well I for one am SO glad that it still promotes debate!!


I dread the day when this doesn't even cause us to bat an eyelid.

Why? do you think they should be embarrassed of their bodies? Maybe ashamed of the way they look?

Catari Jaguar

NickDrake wrote: »

I am male and I am stating that the students were wrong in their behaviour

Hey Nick, can I ask do you think it's wrong in general or wrong because they are going to be teachers? Is it wrong to model bikinis for charity or is it just wrong to be posing in glamour shots for the paper? Or the same?

Kooli

RedXIV wrote: »

Why? do you think they should be embarrassed of their bodies? Maybe ashamed of the way they look?

No why would you think I think that?

But when it just becomes a 'given' that women will always be in bikinis in the papers advertising everything from charity events, to the galway races to a new car, and no one even thinks twice or wonders 'why do women have to be seen this way ALL THE TIME?' - I wouldn't see that as a good thing.

I'm always baffled by the idea that if you don't want to stand around half naked and pouting then you must have body image issues or be fat or something!

Bottle_of_Smoke

Kooli wrote: »

She never said they didn't. She said that male posters are in the main OK with it and will jump down the throat of the female posters who aren't. That for me seems pretty accurate. It doesn't presuppose that there no female posters who support these girls at all.

Look at the post:

This thread has just proved male posters = okay with female students pictured in underwear and will jump down the throats of any female poster that isn't. Massive shocker.


Not ''some'' male posters. Just ''male posters'' as if they were the only ones with liberal views about it

NickDrake

cherub rock wrote: »

Hey Nick, can I ask do you think it's wrong in general or wrong because they are going to be teachers? Is it wrong to model bikinis for charity or is it just wrong to be posing in glamour shots for the paper? Or the same?

As I stated above, I think it is bad for women in a professional setting. If they want to be taken seriously they should above instances like this.

They have been arguing for years that they do not want to be treated like sex objects in the workplace - education etc and now this.

I just seem very unprofessional behaviour and reflects badly on women

Reward

I wonder how well it would go down if it was male treachers that were "stripping"... blacklisted, feminist, female and media hysteria, sex offenders regristers maybe?

Seems that women can sexually harass everyone in eyeshot at work, while us men are stuck with everything covered bar our hands and head under threat of legal proceedings!

Welcome to femistan

Kooli

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Look at the post:

This thread has just proved male posters = okay with female students pictured in underwear and will jump down the throats of any female poster that isn't. Massive shocker.


Not ''some'' male posters. Just ''male posters'' as if they were the only ones with liberal views about it

OK. It should say 'some' (or probably 'most')

Kooli

Reward wrote: »

I wonder how well it would go down if it was male treachers were "stripping".

I'm am going to be honest about this, and probably get roasted for it, because I actually would feel differently about it. Simply because it is a common and daily occurrence to see women in bikinis/underwear advertising things that have nothing to do with bikinis or sex or anything related. Our media is completely saturated with half naked women who are mute and have nothing to say, and are valued for nothing but their half naked bodies and their pouts.
It perpetuates the idea that this is what a woman is valued for - no matter what her achievements are, she should still just 'get nekkid'.

So a man getting naked for a charity calendar has none of those undercurrents, and none of those implications. It is not contributing to a culture that views men as sex objects, and makes it hard for them to be taken seriously. It is not reinforcing the idea that it only matters what a man looks like, no matter what his position.

So for those reasons, I would not have the same reaction.

AnnyHallsal

Kooli wrote: »

I'm always baffled by the idea that if you don't want to stand around half naked and pouting then you must have body image issues or be fat or something!

Can't we accept those who do want to stand around half naked?

I'm a woman, I wouldn't dream of appearing in public in my underwear regardless of the shape of my body, but I respect the choices other women make.

Yes, semi-clothed women are used to sell everything but accepting that seems to me less harmful than condemning the women involved.

RedXIV

Kooli wrote: »

No why would you think I think that?

But when it just becomes a 'given' that women will always be in bikinis in the papers advertising everything from charity events, to the galway races to a new car, and no one even thinks twice or wonders 'why do women have to be seen this way ALL THE TIME?' - I wouldn't see that as a good thing.

I'm always baffled by the idea that if you don't want to stand around half naked and pouting then you must have body image issues or be fat or something!

But they aren't seen like that all the time. Sure we all know sex sells but not EVERY product is sold with an accompanying bikini girl. The thing is, most of the things that these ads are designed for are for men, its a fact. Men like looking at scantily clad women. But even men are getting used to the idea. Sure the first time it may have been a complete shock and everybody talked about it but nowadays? Its a way to draw a man's eye to a subject (and evidently everyone elses ) which in this case was "donate to charity.

Thats a good thing. And the people who are saying the girls are bad role models for using their looks sound to me like they are trying make the girls feel bad for looking good.

Looking good is not a sin. Wearing a bikini is not a sin. Trying to promote a charity is not a sin. Being a teacher while all the above doesn't suddenly make you the devils right hand woman