Student teachers strip to promote charity fashion show

Catari Jaguar

From Feminist.ie

Teacher students from St. Patrick’s College in Drumcondra, Dublin is organising a Mini Miss Ireland charity fashion show this week, in aid of Our Ladys Childrens Hospital and Aware . Promoting the event on the front page of Metro Herald, the girls are walking around one of the main streets in Dublin city centre. In underwear (and some strange, cropped jerseys). In November.

In usual MetroHerald style, the piece isn’t even an article, just a picture with two lines of text. There are no interviews, limited information about the actual event, and none of the girls are mentioned by name.

I have so many questions, including: Why aren’t they wearing clothes if they’re promoting a fashion show? What happened to their sport jerseys? Do they think this is a suitable way to portray themselves as future teachers? Aren’t they cold? Does stripping off make them good role models for the kids whom they’ll soon be teaching? Walking around in underwear in Coppers, a night club known by many as a bit of a meat market?

And again, can these young girls and women really not think of any other way to raise money for charity than organising for people to pay to watch them strip off?

Donating free grinds to children who are in hospital and therefore can’t attend school?

Campaign to implement Aware’s depression awareness programmes designed for students in secondary schools?

No?

More pics and comments here NSFW - little bit seedier, two is exact same poses - one with shirts, one without; where it looks like the clothes have vanished.

Quite innappropriate imho (I'm a teacher myself) and will be majorly embarassing in staff rooms/ PTMs down the line.

That article says they aren't named but their names are mentioned in another article. Although that could come in handy if they're googled for a job interview... heh! Big mistake, even if their hearts were in the right place.

So what do you lot think?

Edit: Another interesting (um.. scathing) take on it here: Fiona Sherlock's blog

BabyBirch

I saw this in MetroHerald this morning and flicked straight past it. I'm so sick of seeing things being advertised by women in knickers (unless it's a knicker ad!) I love fashion and would probably be the target audience for a charity fashion show but this is not what's going to sell it to me :rolleyes:

Also I have a couple of friends who are teachers, and they're very careful about things like not having drunken photos on Facebook, just in case it comes back to haunt them. Pretty sure they wouldn't be taking their trousers off in the street for a photoshoot either.

Pembily

See this to me is just degrading... Why do we need to strip to publicise stuff??

Seriously can we not get our point across with our clothes on!! As SP said you will be a bit degrading and I would be morto in a few years :eek::(:mad:

Also slightly inappropriate for the classroom!!

Wibbs

Speaking as a bloke who is not averse to skimpy clothing, but I was thinking WTF? a fair bit about this. OK fair play charideee and all that, but this kinda thing is getting a bit old at this stage. Plus I feel a bit concerned about the women in question and the comments this will and has raised and how that may affect them.

Toto Wolfcastle

I read a few of the comments on one of those articles. People, other student teachers in particular, said that people are prudes and that there is nothing wrong with the photographs. I have no problem with the photographs really, but the people commenting should remember that some of the 'prudes' will be interviewing them once they are qualified and might not like what they see if they google them.

It's great that they're raising money. I just thing that they should have thought it through first.

baby and crumble

It doesn't bother me looking at it per se- but like facebook, twitter, etc, people in the teens/ early early twenties don't seem to have grasped the idea that EVERYTHING STICKS.

Everything.

I'd have hoped that people who are going to be teaching future generations would have a little more cop on, but there you have it.

Plus, it makes me feel old. They all look about 12!!!

sallysaucer101

Im printing off a list of names of all those girls so when I have kids to send to school none of them will be teaching my kids.

Lovely looking girls and fair play to them for wanting to raise money etc but really....

MagicMarker

Wow, those pictures are AWFUL!

All I see are a bunch of teenage girls playing dress up (or down, as the case may be). Probably more interested in having their picture in the paper than donating money to charity.

DDC1990

Ok St Pats student here... feels a bit weird to be posting in the Ladies Lounge being male but feck it. (Wasn't creeping by the way Google!) I know a number of the girls personally and the ones I know are brilliant teachers and hard workers. So if you don't want to send your son/daughter to that school, because they were collecting for charity, well its your loss. You may find a teacher who is far less talented, but won't take their clothes off. Lucky child. :rolleyes

1) The abuse these girls are getting is horrendous. They are having a Mini Miss Ireland competition to raise money for Crumlin Childrens Hospital. One element of this competition is a swimsuit section. So they knew they were going to be photographed like that. HOWEVER.

2) The girls were told: Inside Shoot only! And a tasteful one at that. The photographer is nearly totally to blame. There was hundreds of tasteful photos taken. They however don't sell newspapers. You would be deluded to think that the girls decided themselves to send those photos in. Photographer knew waht he was at.

3) Girls were not told that their pictures would be plastered all over the national media.

Some of the girls are really upset at the scathing reactions they have recieved, and to be honest just think about it, they are only 18-21 years old. This came out of the blue at them. None of these are professional models. They didn't "strip down for publicity" as some sources suggest. They did what they were told to by the photo crew, because they were selfless and put themselves forward for a charitable cause.

So for people who tell them they're a disgrace, to cop on, that they've pissed their lives away, they are bimbo's looking for attention, that they wouldn;t leave their child near them, just think first. They are all human and doing a good thing. Now cop yourselves on, and donate a tenner towards crumlin.

iguana

zoegh wrote: »

It doesn't bother me looking at it per se- but like facebook, twitter, etc, people in the teens/ early early twenties don't seem to have grasped the idea that EVERYTHING STICKS.

Everything.

That's the big issue here. I can see this being a big, big regret for an awful lot of these girls a few years from now. Tbh, I suspect they will be lucky if they get to a point where their students find the pictures and mock them for it. This could seriously stand in the way of them ever finding jobs. Especially in a country where the local bishop has the final say in the hiring of teachers in the vast majority of the schools.

Catari Jaguar

I don't think I'd be able to look my lecturers in the eye again if I'd done that in college. Or the lads in my class, knowing what they'd probably be thinking of you. Also, shudder to think of what some of the other "jealous" girls might have been saying about you.

sallysaucer101

DDC1990 wrote: »

Ok St Pats student here... feels a bit weird to be posting in the Ladies Lounge being male but feck it. (Wasn't creeping by the way Google!) I know a number of the girls personally and the ones I know are brilliant teachers and hard workers. So if you don't want to send your son/daughter to that school, because they were collecting for charity, well its your loss. You may find a teacher who is far less talented, but won't take their clothes off. Lucky child. :rolleyes
1) The abuse these girls are getting is horrendous. They are having a Mini Miss Ireland competition to raise money for Crumlin Childrens Hospital. One element of this competition is a swimsuit section. So they knew they were going to be photographed like that. HOWEVER.
2) The girls were told: Inside Shoot only! And a tasteful one at that. The photographer is nearly totally to blame. There was hundreds of tasteful photos taken. They however don't sell newspapers. You would be deluded to think that the girls decided themselves to send those photos in. Photographer knew waht he was at.
3) Girls were not told that their pictures would be plastered all over the national media.
Some of the girls are really upset at the scathing reactions they have recieved, and to be honest just think about it, they are only 18-21 years old. This came out of the blue at them. None of these are professional models. They didn't "strip down for publicity" as some sources suggest. They did what they were told to by the photo crew, because they were selfless and put themselves forward for a charitable cause.
So for people who tell them they're a disgrace, to cop on, that they've pissed their lives away, they are bimbo's looking for attention, that they wouldn;t leave their child near them, just think first. They are all human and doing a good thing. Now cop yourselves on, and donate a tenner towards crumlin.

Ok so they can't say no to stripping for a camera crew but yet they are going to control a class of 30aprox kids...hmmm..

I did say in my post fair play to them wanting to raise money but there are so many other fundraising ideas out there, why did they go for this one!!

Catari Jaguar

DDC1990 wrote: »

Now cop yourselves on, and donate a tenner towards crumlin.

That's not cool at all. Why didn't everyone in the year just donate a tenner towards Crumlin, or shake a bucket (in Coppers!!) or bake cakes? Or just give some of their free time to read to children or give grinds as mentioned in that article?

DDC1990 wrote: »

the ones I know are brilliant teachers.

Student teacher with few weeks of TP is not a teacher btw

I doubt BOM would look favourably on a teacher doing that. But I'd hope a teacher would have more sense than to get a pic of them in their knickers plastered all over the paper.

Sardonicat

Not the kind of women I'd want teaching any child of mine. Definitely would not want that kind of influence on a primary school child. If I was a parent and saw the child's student teacher was involved in this I would remove them from the class without hesitation, and would be complaining very vocally to the school.

Novella

I saw that and I just thought, "My parents would kill me if I did that". Imagine - "Hey honey, what'd you do in college this week?", "Oh, walked around town in a thong and my picture was then in the newspaper."

ztoical

cherub rock wrote: »

Edit: Another interesting (um.. scathing) take on it here: Fiona Sherlock's blog

I took a look at the photos and though meh nothing really that bad going on to be honest...it could have gone really wrong had they gone for a teacher theme rather then the GAA tops. Photography is very blah and basic and at worest lesson learned even when doing something for charity make sure you know the what how when and where things will be used.

Then I read the Fiona Sherlock piece and thought WTF talk about going totally OTT. The bit were she goes on about "Will they miss class because they had to collect STI results from the doctor’s surgery?" seriously? Is she for real? Yes its a shame they're using their bodies and not their brains blah blah but seriously it was done for to raise money and for them I'm sure to have a laugh and break from study and I certainly wouldn't be bothered if I had kids that ended up with any of them as a teacher. Teachers are people not saints.

A bunch of women showed some flesh to raise money not orginal but not much different to a bunch of blokes raising money by spending a month growing some hair on their face [this being November after all] ....niether activity really calls for a great deal of brian power now does it but I'm not going to mock either for doing it. From my own expirence of trying to do something original and creative for charity putting a comic book anthology together it's alot of stress and effort and sometimes I wish I'd just stripped or jumped out of a plane.

DDC1990

If you are a young girl at a paid photoshoot, you generally do what the photographer says. Easpecially witha group like that. If others are willing you dont want to seem like the girl that "ruins it". Im sure you all know how bitchy some girls can get.

AS for a student teacher with a few weeks of TP not being a teacher; fine be technical about it, but I havn't seen these girls on TP. You don't need to see a teacher in a class to know they are a good teacher. You just need to see their mannerisms, their preparation and the inventive lessons that they come up with.

Finally while some are wearing knickers, the majority have Bikini's on. Should teachers not wear skimpy clothing on the beach or at a swimming pool either? Just in case the children see them?

Scarinae

sallysaucer101 wrote: »

Im printing off a list of names of all those girls so when I have kids to send to school none of them will be teaching my kids.

Sardonicat wrote: »

Not the kind of women I'd want teaching any child of mine. Definitely would not want that kind of influence on a primary school child. If I was a parent and saw the child's student teacher was involved in this I would remove them from the class without hesitation, and would be complaining very vocally to the school.

Are you serious? I think there are far more important things to consider when deciding what school to send your children to. You aren't honestly saying that if a school was perfect in every other respect - easy distance from your home, provides an all-rounded education, good extra-curricular activities, good record on tackling bullying, recommended by friends, whatever - you would actually decide not to send your children there because one of the teachers once took part in a charity fundraiser that involved being in a bikini?

I'm not saying that I would have done it, I think there are other ways to raise money and it does seem a bit naive to get involved in something like this, but I don't understand the knee-jerk reactions. I doubt they are going to corrupt your children.

Sardonicat

Fishie wrote: »

Are you serious? I think there are far more important things to consider when deciding what school to send your children to. You aren't honestly saying that if a school was perfect in every other respect - easy distance from your home, provides an all-rounded education, good extra-curricular activities, good record on tackling bullying, recommended by friends, whatever - you would actually decide not to send your children there because one of the teachers once took part in a charity fundraiser that involved being in a bikini?

I'm not saying that I would have done it, I think there are other ways to raise money and it does seem a bit naive to get involved in something like this, but I don't understand the knee-jerk reactions. I doubt they are going to corrupt your children.

I would not want my children to be influenced by a vacous bimbo who thinks it's actually a charitable act to take part in a "beauty pagent" and have herself displayed like a whore for charity.

What's the reason to undress? Who looks at pictures of undressed women and for what purpose? They've stripped off so their pictures can be wanked to for "charity". No, I would not want someone who does not have a problem with that teaching my child, especially a daughter.

Catari Jaguar

DDC1990 wrote: »

Finally while some are wearing knickers, the majority have Bikini's on. Should teachers not wear skimpy clothing on the beach or at a swimming pool either? Just in case the children see them?

They're not on the beach or at the pool are they? No, they're in the middle of the city centre, pictured in the newspaper!!

Any teachers I know have the most private FB settings possible because they are so careful to not let any pictures of nights out or whatever be seen by the children/ parents.

So these poor girls got taken advantage of by a seedy photographer? Whose idea was it in the first place to do a bikini portion of the Mini Miss Ireland? Whose idea was it to do a bikini photoshoot? Where were these photos supposed to be circulated?

It's not the worst thing in the world, but it was an ill thought & immature idea with no foresight into consequences or opinion and methinks that they will regret it. Like it or lump it, you are hired by the board of management which is priests, parents & older generation principals.

Yes, it's extreme and closed minded to say that you wouldn't want them teaching your child (although I do understand it if it you have a curious son/ impressionable daughter in 6th class) but these are real views expressed by real parents who you have to answer to in your work. Many parents think they have a right to your personal life, love to snoop and my god, they love to talk. You should hear them in the yard in the morning!

As for the Metro, I would usually leave it on my desk after I've read it in the morning. But I had to put it in my school bag so none of the class would see that picture, because I'd have been up sh1t creek if they had!

iguana

DDC1990 wrote: »

Finally while some are wearing knickers, the majority have Bikini's on.

I have no problem with how those girls are dressed in any of the pictures. I wore some crazy skimpy stuff when I was their age, and kids that age do stupid stuff that they cringe at when they look back on 5/10/20 years later.

However, tell that to the bishop. The man who will have to approve all hirings of teachers in Catholic schools in his diocese. This photo shoot will stick and few of those girls stand much chance of being hired in one of the schools which make up the huge majority of those in this country. Schools of other faiths will have similar rules about their clergy approving all appointments.

And even in an ET school it is very possible that the school board won't be willing to take on a teacher who could cause controversy among a large set of the parents. And regardless of moral issues, the fact that she will most certainly have trouble maintaining a suitable learning environment once the pupils have found those pictures will also be cause for concern in every single position she applies for.

I'm sorry for these girls, I don't want to make them feel bad. They didn't do anything wrong and what they did was for charity. But it was stupid, very stupid and could have long-lasting consequences for their careers.

dfx-

DDC1990 wrote: »

Ok St Pats student here... feels a bit weird to be posting in the Ladies Lounge being male but feck it. (Wasn't creeping by the way Google!) I know a number of the girls personally and the ones I know are brilliant teachers and hard workers. So if you don't want to send your son/daughter to that school, because they were collecting for charity, well its your loss. You may find a teacher who is far less talented, but won't take their clothes off. Lucky child. :rolleyes

1) The abuse these girls are getting is horrendous. They are having a Mini Miss Ireland competition to raise money for Crumlin Childrens Hospital. One element of this competition is a swimsuit section. So they knew they were going to be photographed like that. HOWEVER.

In lieu of several thanks, I agree fully.

This is the kind of thread I was talking about previously when AH was in focus. It's incredible. It really is astonishing. "displaying like whores", "vacuous bimbo" "degrading"

ztoical

Sardonicat wrote: »

No, I would not want someone who does not have a problem with that teaching my child, especially a daughter.

Why because you think they are going to teach her to take her clothes off? First off they're students not teachers. Anyone who can put a hand up saying they never did anything stupid as a student is frankly lieing. You think they are going to arrive in with copies of the paper and go look kids what teacher did!

Most Doctors tell people they shouldn't smoke and should eat healthy yet nearly every doctor I know smokes and have some of the most unhealthy diets going. It's a case of do what I say not do what I do. All this 'they're role models' please again teachers not saints....had the photo shoot featured them in some teaching set up and playing up the fact that they are hoping to be future teachers I might buy that but had I not read the piece I wouldn't have known they were any different to any other 18/19/20 year olds out there.

Scarinae

Sardonicat wrote: »

I would not want my children to be influenced by a vacous bimbo who thinks it's actually a charitable act to take part in a "beauty pagent" and have herself displayed like a whore for charity.

What's the reason to undress? Who looks at pictures of undressed women and for what purpose? They've stripped off so their pictures can be wanked to for "charity". No, I would not want someone who does not have a problem with that teaching my child, especially a daughter.

Ok, so you would actually take your child out of an otherwise ideal school, and send them to another one that is not so ideal, just because one teacher in the school once did something like this for charity? That seems ridiculous to me. They're not going to start persuading your child to dress in skimpy clothes and to have underage sex.

I also don't think much of the way you are talking about these girls. Those kind of women? Vacuous bimbos? Displayed like whores? That is pretty harsh, considering that you don't know anything about them.

SugarHigh

I don't see the harm. How does it make them bad role models by helping out a charity?

The only negative consequence to what they've done is that they will have to listen to moaners like this blogger.

Silverfish

Sardonicat, I'm sure you can make your point without the namecalling.

Please read the charter and keep things civil.

Thank you.

SugarHigh

sallysaucer101 wrote: »

Im printing off a list of names of all those girls so when I have kids to send to school none of them will be teaching my kids.

Lovely looking girls and fair play to them for wanting to raise money etc but really....

How does what they have worn in the past affect their ability to teach? That just sounds like snobbery.

iguana

Fishie wrote: »

Ok, so you would actually take your child out of an otherwise ideal school, and send them to another one that is not so ideal, just because one teacher in the school once did something like this for charity? That seems ridiculous to me. They're not going to start persuading your child to dress in skimpy clothes and to have underage sex.

I also don't think much of the way you are talking about these girls. Those kind of women? Vacuous bimbos? Displayed like whores? That is pretty harsh, considering that you don't know anything about them.

I agree with what you are saying but there are a significant number of parents who will feel exactly like Sardonicat and sallysaucer101. Few school boards will be willing to arouse such problems amongst the parents of their pupils needlessly, even if the majority of people on the board agree with you. (Which is an unlikely scenario considering that most school boards are ultimately run by clergy.) They will just hire a candidate who will not cause controversy. It isn't as if there is a shortage of potential teachers.

DDC1990

Sardonicat wrote: »

I would not want my children to be influenced by a vacous bimbo who thinks it's actually a charitable act to take part in a "beauty pagent" and have herself displayed like a whore for charity.

What's the reason to undress? Who looks at pictures of undressed women and for what purpose? They've stripped off so their pictures can be wanked to for "charity". No, I would not want someone who does not have a problem with that teaching my child, especially a daughter.

If you wouldnt mind pointing out the vacuous bimbo to me. Because you seem to know an awful lot about the personalities of these girls without having ever met them. For your information 475 is the points total required for teaching in St. Pats, so none of them are stupid. Grand this wasn't a clever thing to do career wise, but to attack them in such a way makes you sound downright jelous. None of these girls go around "flaunting their bodies" normally. They are doing this one act for charity. Our Rugby team in the college produce a semi-nude calander every year. Just because a proffessional photographer doesnt sell those pictures to the papers (for obvious reasons) doesn't make us any different to them. We took our clothes off, they took their clothes off. As I said, they were not told that they would be plastered all over the newspapers.

Also, a lot of you have the wrong idea. They don't strip for charity. They are actually modelling clothes, gowns etc. but also... in the spirit of Miss Ireland have a swimsuit section.

Lest ye forget Emma Waldron... the Student Teacher who came 4th in Miss World! :O
The "vacuous bimbo" had to do a swimsuit section as well, but no one gave a ****e. And that was for her own personal gain, not for charity!

Sardonicat

Fishie wrote: »

Ok, so you would actually take your child out of an otherwise ideal school, and send them to another one that is not so ideal, just because one teacher in the school once did something like this for charity? That seems ridiculous to me. They're not going to start persuading your child to dress in skimpy clothes and to have underage sex.

I also don't think much of the way you are talking about these girls. Those kind of women? Vacuous bimbos? Displayed like whores? That is pretty harsh, considering that you don't know anything about them.

They are displayed like whores! They are walking down Abbey Street in stilletoes and thongs! To think taking off your clothes to resemble the women in a **** mag is an act of charity is vacous!

No, I do not think that they would bring the paper into the school but I do think that their attitude to their sexuality as a commodity (albeit, a charitable one) is not the kind of attitude I'd want someone to be teaching my child to have.

I'd prefer teachers to be positive role models and to be breaking down these stereotypical notions of women as meat, not endorsing them.How can these girls impart self respect when they clearly have none?

And these are the kinds of responses they are going to encounter when thet apply for work.

Sardonicat

DDC1990 wrote: »

The "vacuous bimbo" had to do a swimsuit section as well, but no one gave a ****e. And that was for her own personal gain, not for charity!

Yes, a vacous bimbo. Anyone who would lower themselves for the meat mart like that can be nothing else.

Novella

Sardonicat wrote: »

Yes, a vacous bimbo. Anyone who would lower themselves for the meat mart like that can be nothing else.

Ah, come on now, that's a bit far... :eek:

ztoical

iguana wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying but there are a significant number of parents who will feel exactly like Sardonicat. Few school boards will be willing to arouse such problems among the parents of their pupils needlessly, even if the majority of people on the board agree with you. (Which will be rare considering that most school boards are ultimately run by clergy.) They will just hire a candidate who will not cause controversy. It isn't as if there is a shortage of potential teachers.

And if they do that for those reasons and the person who is refused the job can prove it they could be leaving themselves open to a massive lawsuit. These girls are not teachers, they are students and in this case acting as private citizens [though the newspaper names the college so one would assume the college has no issue otherwise they would have demanded the girls not talk about what college they were attending] so it can't be held againist them as a reason to refuse employment.

A school board will run a police check which would not bring up this as it is not illegal and frankly if you live in a small town you'd hear lots of stories of what teachers get up to outside of school hours and as long as they aren't repersenting the school at a function whatever they do is their own business. I have plenty of stories of what some of my primary school teachers got up to as students as several went to college with my dad didn't make a blind bit of difference to what i thought of them as teachers.

Lots of us do stupid things as students, you don't spend our early college years thinking of the long term impact it could have on career and on a scale of 1 to 10 of stupid things to do in college this is pretty low down on the list.

SugarHigh

Sardonicat wrote: »

Yes, a vacous bimbo. Anyone who would lower themselves for the meat mart like that can be nothing else.

Can you explain why? Do you spend every waking hour discussing weighty intellectual subjects?

You can't make a judgment on a persons intelligence from viewing a photograph which represents a few hours out of their entire life which you can't possibly know anything about.

Neyite

i would not have a problem with any of these girls teaching in a school my kids are at.

teachers have it hard enough being almost paranoid on nights out, facebook privacy etc, and they are still fair game for students to make up names for them and nitpick apart every aspect of their appearance and mannerisims to take the piss out of. i know from our school we had them tormented, and we werent a particularly bad school.

what they did when they were students would be no concern of mine. i would judge them on how they teach my children. if being a good role model for a child as an adult is dependant on my college behaviour 16 years ago, then a lot of us should never become mothers.:p

SugarHigh

Sardonicat wrote: »

They are displayed like whores! They are walking down Abbey Street in stilletoes and thongs! To think taking off your clothes to resemble the women in a **** mag is an act of charity is vacous!

No, I do not think that they would bring the paper into the school but I do think that their attitude to their sexuality as a commodity (albeit, a charitable one) is not the kind of attitude I'd want someone to be teaching my child to have.

I'd prefer teachers to be positive role models and to be breaking down these stereotypical notions of women as meat, not endorsing them.How can these girls impart self respect when they clearly have none?

And these are the kinds of responses they are going to encounter when thet apply for work.

How about breaking down the stereotype that people who wear bikinis are bimbos.:D

Lia_lia

Oh for goodness sakes. There are student teachers that do a lot worse things than that in respect to how it will effect their ability to teach/influence children.

It's just a charity thing. They are young. Get over it.

And they were hardly going to "just say no" when a photographer was giving them instructions for promoting their charity event.

Wibbs

SugarHigh wrote: »

You can't make a judgment on a persons intelligence from viewing a photograph which represents a few hours out of their entire life which you can't possible know anything about.

Agreed, let's dial this back to reasoned debate please and avoid this over emotivee and insulting "vacuous bimbo/whore" tag about someone we know nothing about.




And if me and SH are agreeing in tLL? Good God folks, batten down the hatches, the bloody end is nigh!! :eek::D

Jesus Wept

DDC1990 wrote: »

.

2) The girls were told: Inside Shoot only!

Personally I don't care...

But at what point when they were asked to walk down Abbey Street did they say 'no, that's outdoorsie!!'

Scarinae

iguana wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying but there are a significant number of parents who will feel exactly like Sardonicat and sallysaucer101. Few school boards will be willing to arouse such problems amongst the parents of their pupils needlessly, even if the majority of people on the board agree with you. (Which is an unlikely scenario considering that most school boards are ultimately run by clergy.) They will just hire a candidate who will not cause controversy. It isn't as if there is a shortage of potential teachers.

I take your point, and I think that you are probably right. I still think it is ridiculous though, and makes me wish that people wouldn't get so whipped up by what they see in the paper. The reporting on this story has probably done more damage to these girls' careers than the actual charity event would ever have done. I bet Coppers are delighted at all the publicity that has been drummed up though.

Sardonicat wrote: »

They are displayed like whores! They are walking down Abbey Street in stilletoes and thongs! To think taking off your clothes to resemble the women in a **** mag is an act of charity is vacous!

No, I do not think that they would bring the paper into the school but I do think that their attitude to their sexuality as a commodity (albeit, a charitable one) is not the kind of attitude I'd want someone to be teaching my child to have.

I'd prefer teachers to be positive role models and to be breaking down these stereotypical notions of women as meat, not endorsing them.How can these girls impart self respect when they clearly have none?

And these are the kinds of responses they are going to encounter when thet apply for work.

Underneath all the scaremongering and hysteria in your posts, what actual substance is there? How is this going to affect the way they teach your child?

Are they going to come into work dressed like they are in the photoshoot? Are they going to encourage your children to dress like that? Are they going to distribute '**** mags', as you so delightfully call them? Are they going to tell your children to have promiscuous sex? Can you give me any actual examples of how this will affect their teaching ability?

How about the example that someone else gave on this thread, of male student teachers stripping off for a charity calendar? Would you kick up a fuss about them teaching your children? Would you have a problem with them presenting the male body as meat, using their sexuality as a commodity?

Sardonicat wrote: »

Yes, a vacous bimbo. Anyone who would lower themselves for the meat mart like that can be nothing else.

I don't think I even need to comment on this one.


EDIT: I posted this before I saw Wibbs' post... Sorry

Sardonicat

SugarHigh wrote: »

Can you explain why? Do you spend every waking hour discussing weighty intellectual subjects?

You can't make a judgment on a persons intelligence from viewing a photograph which represents a few hours out of their entire life which you can't possible know anything about.

When I was in my late teens/early twenties the predominate view of my peers towards miss world was that it was a meat mart. Our views on this have not changed. It seems now that women of that age do not view this as at all demeaning. The whole business is about judging someone on her body, regardless of her intelligence, skills or achievement. This is vacous. If you participate in this meat mart you are endorsing it. Participating in a meat mart for charity despite the fact that you are clearly intelligent and capable of contributing something much more meaningful, to me, indicates a lack of insight that I would call vacous. Someone who publicly endorsdes this view of women would not be teaching my child. Those photos are no different to some of the photos you would see in top shelf mags. The fact it was done to publicise a charity does not change that. I would not ever want a child to think that this is ok, and something to aspire to, even for charity (especially, for charity).

What the teacher does in her private life, I agree, is of course, her own business.

iguana

ztoical wrote: »

And if they do that for those reasons and the person who is refused the job can prove it they could be leaving themselves open to a massive lawsuit.

No they really, really couldn't. The BOMs would never be so stupid as to state why they weren't hiring a particular girl, they would simply say they had a better candidate. Those girls are now highly unemployable, it's unfortunate for them but that's the most likely consequence.

ztoical

The-Rigger wrote: »

But at what point when they were asked to walk down Abbey Street did they say 'no, that's outdoorsie!!'

Professional photographer vs Student teachers...people can be pretty easy to manipulate when the focus is charity.

Sardonicat

Fishie wrote: »

How about the example that someone else gave on this thread, of male student teachers stripping off for a charity calendar? Would you kick up a fuss about them teaching your children? Would you have a problem with them presenting the male body as meat, using their sexuality as a commodity?

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?

ztoical

iguana wrote: »

No they really, really couldn't. The BOMs would never be so stupid as to state why they weren't hiring a particular girl, they would simply say they had a better candidate. Those girls are now highly unemployable, it's unfortunate for them but that's the most likely consequence.

That why I said If they could prove it, as in most cases it can be hard to prove but you'll find as paranoid as a school board might be about hiring someone who did a questionable photo shot for charity they'd be just as paranoid not to hire them for fear of it coming back to bite them as discrimination.

Also I strongly disagree that they are highly unemployable. A teacher who has good recomendations from college and schools they trained in will find they out weigh alot of stupid carry on from student years.

Novella

Sardonicat wrote: »

When I was in my late teens/early twenties the predominate view of my peers towards miss world was that it was a meat mart. Our views on this have not changed. It seems now that women of that age do not view this as at all demeaning. The whole business is about judging someone on her body, regardless of her intelligence, skills or achievement. This is vacous. If you participate in this meat mart you are endorsing it. Participating in a meat mart for charity despite the fact that you are clearly intelligent and capable of contributing something much more meaningful, to me, indicates a lack of insight that I would call vacous. Someone who publicly endorsdes this view of women would not be teaching my child. Those photos are no different to some of the photos you would see in top shelf mags. The fact it was done to publicise a charity does not change that. I would not ever want a child to think that this is ok, and something to aspire to, even for charity (especially, for charity).

What the teacher does in her private life, I agree, is of course, her own business.

While personally I wouldn't be caught dead walking down any street in a pair of knickers, I do think that you're over-reacting somewhat. It's not like these girls are posed, finger in mouth, legs open with come hither eyes. Despite the fact that they've done this, I'm sure they will 'contribute to society' in a way that you think is more appropriate and go on to become fantastic teachers. Also, the fact that this is for charity does redeem it slightly for me - is this not a contribution, no? Okay, maybe it's not the most modest and perhaps they should have stuck to selling raffle tickets or whatever, but they tried. We all make mistakes, and having them held over us forever is kinda unreasonable, especially considering they're only young.

I would definitely let them teach my children (if I ever have any, that is) because I'd judge a teacher on her ability to teach my child spellings and maths etc., not on aspects of her past that aren't really hugely significant.

yizorselves

I would have had these women as teachers before any old hairy chinned middle aged woman anyday.

Ha, some of the responses on this thread remind me of Reverend Lovejoy's wife from the Simpsons. "Oh wont someone please think of the children!"

TheReverend

best teachers ever

pikachucheeks

ztoical wrote: »

Professional photographer vs Student teachers...people can be pretty easy to manipulate when the focus is charity.

+1

Reminds me of that episode of The IT Crowd where Roy is trying to get some women he works with to do a nude calendar, for a charity :pac:

I'm not particularly shocked by the photos. Women in skimpy clothing has proven to be a successful way of marketing and promoting stuff since God knows when.

I'm sure the girls were just having a bit of fun and there's no harm in that. I doubt they were trying to offend people or make any sort of statement other than "come to our fashion show".

Perhaps not wearing much wasn't the most sensible choice, but so what?
Just take it with a pinch of salt. Turn the newspaper page and read about something else! After all, the girls are just representing themselves and their event - They're not trying to claim that all student teachers, or women, dress like that.

Women... using their bodies... to promote things?!

Well... I never!



Seems like a whole lot of nothing, to me.


Do the people who have a problem with this let their house burn to the ground because those filthy men at the fire station pose for calendars every now and again?


Seems like such a non-issue, and it's for charity. Would also resent the comments about the photographer being seedy. The photos are hardly the most artistic in the world, but they're not too bad either.

Fair play to the girls, say I. They're getting people talking and they looked good while they were at it.

Sardonicat

pikachucheeks wrote: »

Women in skimpy clothing has proven to be a successful way of marketing and promoting stuff since God knows when.


/QUOTE]

Sigh! That's my point.