Spare me, please!

Handley_Page

Draco interdum Vincit
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Posts
78,287
OK, gang, This is a serious question.

I would be genuinely interested to find out whether I really am a dynosaur or whether this writer is a twit.
I mean, is there anything wrong with a calendar of pretty girls on the garage wall (or the shed, for that matter).

This is what started it:

Ryanair's sexist, tacky calendar is a new low
Semi-naked cabin crew stripping for the cameras isn't just seedy, it's out of date and out of touch, says Cathy Winston

Given that it's an airline that has mooted doing away with toilets and making overweight people pay a special tax, I probably shouldn’t be surprised by Ryanair's tacky new calendar featuring female cabin crew in bikinis, underwear and high heels.

RyanairI mean, seriously? With 2013 just days away, have we not moved on even slightly from the days when every mechanic’s workshop had pictures of scantily clad women on the wall? Apparently not.

More than a decade has passed since members of the WI stripped with strategically arranged buns to raise money for charity, yet after endless tongue-in-cheek, ironic nude calendars, Ryanair is still stuck in the dark ages churning out its seedy shots of employees in (what I imagine to be) highly flammable bits of nylon.

Yes, a not-to-be-missed opportunity for highly trained staff - responsible for your safety in a worst case scenario - to gyrate in poses even lads’ mags would feel a bit queasy about - as well as getting to flog scratchcards to unwilling passengers.

"If it isn't sexist, why are there no men in the calendar?"

Pirelli might be able to get away with it (just) with some of the world’s most sought-after photographers and glamorous models in its famous calendar, but even Ryanair can’t argue they’re in the same league.

And I can’t help but notice that it’s only the female cabin crew who are pouting and posing with shower hoses – the men seem to have escaped being oiled up and paraded in front of the cameras. And the message that sends is this: we're happy to be sexist as well as living in the past.

Ah, but it’s for charity, someone is bound to say – TVN Foundation, one of Poland’s largest charities. Well, I’m all for raising money for good causes but how about doing it in a way which doesn’t objectify women?

Why not substitute gorgeous shots of some of the airline’s destinations? I mean the destinations people think they’re flying to, not the actual place an hour away where the planes touch down of course.

"If they want to give to charity, why not donate from the profits?"

Would the £10 calendar sell as many? Maybe not – but if CEO Michael O’Leary is committed to helping Ryanair’s chosen charity, perhaps he could top it up from the budget carrier’s profits.

It would certainly make me admire them more – even if it’s probably not what you’d expect from the man who has debated standing ‘seats’ to cram more people on, all to squeeze a few extra pounds out of each passenger.

I sometimes wonder what Mrs O'Leary thinks of all this. Because for once, this isn’t just one of Ryanair’s headline-grabbing stunts, it feels a bit grubby for everyone involved. Rather like how I feel after flying on the airline itself...

Cathy Winston has visited 55 countries (so far) and is already plotting journeys to the other 141. In between ignoring her unpacking, she's written for publications including National Geographic Traveller and the Independent, as well as starting her own blog, www.mummytravels.com​​.

Follow Cathy Winston on Twitter @cathywinston.



She's wrong, IMO, in mixing her dislike of O'Leary's airline with her attitude to a simple calendar.

Go buy the calendar of your choice, madam, from any of the outlets doing them at this time of year. If you want one with handsome young men, see your local Fire Brigade who may have done one for charity. Then you can have the best of both worlds; men and some charitable endeavour. And I am sure that your local Travel Agency will supply you with one full of pretty pictures of some distant destinations.

I am old enough to say that I'd rather see a young lady in a nice bikini than a picture of some sun-drenched flower bed.

Lady, if you don't like that airline, don't fly on it.
If you don't like the calendar don't pin it up.
But in God's good name, don't tell me what I can and cannot look at on a garage wall or tool shed. Keep your one-sided views to the Twitterati.


Practical comments would be welcome
 
Cathy Winston is out of touch.

There used to be glamour girl calendars that weren't exactly artistic. Pirelli changed that, making them into an art form. Calendar Girls raised money for Cancer charity. Now there are posed pictures Calendar-Girl style of women and men. They are just entertainment and raise money for good causes.

You may not like RyanAir's commercial practises, but they don't deserve criticism for producing a calendar like so many other organisations.
 
As has been pointed out, there are calendars that feature scantily clad people, either male or female. In fact some of the calendars feature scantily clad couples posing.
There are calendars that feature nude people, either male or female. In fact some of the calendars feature nude couples posing.
The calendars are produced and distributed, because they sell well. Often they're sold to raise money for charity.
If someone doesn't like such calendars, they don't have to buy them, nor do they have to patronize establishments that hang them on the walls. However, no one has the right, morally or legally to tell other adults what they should or should not see.
In short, the bitch is crazy.
 
It seems more as if she's saying the pictures are shit.

That said, some people would be glad to see pictures of naked flyboys on a calendar.
 
Damn. The last calendar I got in the mail featured cutsie Thomas Kincaid cottages. I'm obviously on the wrong mail distribution list.
 
It seems more as if she's saying the pictures are shit.

That said, some people would be glad to see pictures of naked flyboys on a calendar.

Tangent here...

That's one thing I've always had a problem with.

A lot of feminists and feminist writings seek to curb objectification of women in the media.

I say HELL NO!

I have no problem if women are objectified. As long as men are equally objectified. :D Instead of less sex appeal for men, more sex appeal for EVERYONE!!!

Tangent ended.

http://lucien0maverick.files.wordpr...theyre-not-exploiting-david-beckham-right.jpg

Mmmmm...
 
Tangent off a tangential comment

Objectification. Objectification? What the hell IS objectification anyway?

I've heard it said that men only have enough blood to fill one head or the other but not both. I've also learned in my studies that when women become aroused, the blood engorges their genitalia as well. So, what is sauce for the gander works equally well for the goose, eh?

I doubt there is a single human being on the face of the earth that would feel that they have not, at some point in their lives, made a "mistake" once arousal writhes through their firey loins. At least once.

However, let's say that no one reading this feels that they have indeed fallen prey to the god of Lust and lost their higher cognative functions. Ok, so who in the throes of a passionate pounding as they reach for that magical release has ever asked, "So, what is your stance on euthenasia?"

We are all just objects of affection or lust for the ones who see us in such a light. Thank heavens or the human race would have died out long ago. Marketing geniuses know this and have used it for generations to lure us to their side of the street.

Snap-on tools made a dandy product. But, would they have sold as much if they hadn't included scantily clad women wielding those tools in posters and calendars?

Ok, so we shouldn't have pictures of scantily clad women pinned up for men to look at or men for women to look at or men for men or women for women or animals for hillbillies. Fine. What next?

Will we take the darting out of the woman's dress so it won't taper at her waist? Hmm, maybe we should cut everybodies hair to only two inches long while we are at it. And dye it all black. Or, screw it, let's get out the wimples and veils.

And what about all of these perfumes and colognes? Toss that crap out. Matter of fact, go out to the pig pens and roll in some crap while we are at it. Make sure you don't smell at all sexy.

Oh, and no talking. We wouldn't want anyone to become sexually aroused from the dulcet tones of your voice, now would we?

No, OP. You aren't a dinosaur. The writer you quoted is an antiquated throwback to the Victorian era at the very least. Fortunately, she is probably so sexually repressed that her line will die out eventually so as not to inflict their idea of "propriety" on future generations.
 
no, Acktion, that's not what objectification is. Maybe tomorrow I'll come up with a snappy condensed explanation, not tonight.

However for your delectation, here are the pictures Ms Winston is complaning about; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/ryanair-2013-calendar-photos_n_1973536.html#slide=1651832

What's the verdict?

The gals always need something to march and fret about, its why we dont take you seriously. I mean, who cares what women think about anything!
 
Last edited:
Heck, even Sports Illustrated has a calendar out with bikini-clad babes on it!

Although for the sake of modesty (and to prevent parental yelling when either of them visits me), I put up one from the local real estate agency that has pictures of nice photos of scenic views on it. Plus the fact that the real estate calendar is free and the other one costs $9.98 before GST...
 
Heck, even Sports Illustrated has a calendar out with bikini-clad babes on it!

Although for the sake of modesty (and to prevent parental yelling when either of them visits me), I put up one from the local real estate agency that has pictures of nice photos of scenic views on it. Plus the fact that the real estate calendar is free and the other one costs $9.98 before GST...

Where does one acquire a Sports Illustrated calendar ?
 
no, Acktion, that's not what objectification is. Maybe tomorrow I'll come up with a snappy condensed explanation, not tonight.

However for your delectation, here are the pictures Ms Winston is complaning about; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/ryanair-2013-calendar-photos_n_1973536.html#slide=1651832

What's the verdict?

Maybe Acktion missed your definition of objectification (or websters or whatever authority you'd like to site) but I think you may be glossing over the point.

If Ms. Winston wants to express her opinion of the calendar, that's perfectly fine but I think her ire is perhaps a bit misplaced. I highly doubt that any of these women were forced to pose for this calendar. She's taken this opportunity to slam the airline for engaging in a very common marketing practice that many other organizations have no reservations about engaging in, and while I'm not very familliar with her work I doubt she takes exception to every 'seedy' photograph that shows up in an ad.

The idea that this somehow objectifies women is valid right up to the point that we recognize that the women in these photos have the right to decide if they want to pose in them or not. To ignore that paints these women as helpless, victimized half-wits without the good sense to say 'No' when the evil boss man says, "Git yer purty little self into this here buh-kini sugar tits!" If her problem is really with the calendar then perhaps she should be directing her anger at the women that made it possible.

She's right to say that this isn't new, but her assumption that it's almost 2013 and somehow society should have evolved in such a way that sexuality should suddenly stop being fodder for the marketing department is a bit naive at best. At worst it's the kind of thinking that reinforces a precieved need to keep old, out dated and over reaching decency laws on the books that have long plagued our constitutional right to free speech (speaking as a US citizen of course - I don't know where she' from and don't find it relevant).

If she's genuinely upset about this then I would expect to hear her likewise castigating everyone from PETA to the local fire department and lets not forget about the worst offenders - all those evil porn producers. But that's not what's going on here - she's very obviously got an axe to grind and she's using this calendar as ammunition. It strikes me as another case of someone trying to rouse her audience using whatever emotional triggers that she can in order to elicit the most robust response. In my opinion this is the lowest form of writing - by far and away more damaging to society than the most poorly written smut.

But that's just my opinion. Thank your choice of higher powers that she and I both have the right to state it. :)

(why do I feel like I've just stepped in an ant hill?)
 
Photo number 4 of 18 gets my vote. See Stellas Huffpo link for details.

This Winston woman needs to get back to her National Geo photo assignments and quit bothering people. ;)
 
A lot of feminists and feminist writings seek to curb objectification of women in the media.

I say HELL NO!

I have no problem if women are objectified. As long as men are equally objectified. :D Instead of less sex appeal for men, more sex appeal for EVERYONE!!!

Quick question. Are Feminism and Women's Liberation the same thing? I like the term 'Women's Liberation' because it suggests to me freedom and equality. Feminism seems to want to replace an old dogma for a new dogma (women and men).

When it comes to the female form, some of the most amazing art to me is that of Alberto Vargas. Stylized? Yes. Objectified? Yes. Beautiful? Without question. You can see on one of these that the year was 1924. My guess is while these were being published there were very few erotic drawings of men being published. Are we looking for freedom from, or freedom to?

I know, I know, "But that's art!" Who gets to decide?

It seems government and 'organizations' want us to have freedom from things. This of course means, lack of choice and lack of freedom or maybe rather... them having the freedom to make the choice for us. I say screw 'em. They're welcome to their opinion, but I'm welcome to mine. I'll fight for them to say what they want because in doing that I protect my own freedom of speech, but I will not tolerate them telling me what I should say or believe. 'They' (on either side if looking for a restriction) don't seem to understand that by asking for a restriction, they are setting a precident for their own freedom to be restricted in the future.

I want freedom of speech and action. I will not impose my will on others. But neither will I will put up with being told what I should or should not do or believe as long as I'm not hurting anyone. Why didn't this writer go after Playboy or Hustler? Because they just wants to push someone around. That's how political correctness is used.

From 1984 by George Orwell:

Ministry of Truth - Propoganda
Ministry of Peace - Prosecutors or war
Ministry of Love - Interogation and torture
Ministry of Plenty - Rationing and supply

Long live Newspeak, the language of INGSOC. Long live political correctness!


BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH​
 

Attachments

  • Vargas.jpg
    Vargas.jpg
    39.7 KB · Views: 7
  • Vargas2.jpg
    Vargas2.jpg
    32.1 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
Lemme see if I can explain this...

Okay, this is the theory, okay? Try not to get upset. Try not to take it personally on the very first reading. There is no blame here. It's just another way of looking at things that some of us might not have encountered.

Basically, objectification is a way of thinking about people that disregards their personal autonomy and agency.

In other words, we see people as objects that only have importance in relation to ourselves. How WE feel about that person is more important to us, then what that person actually is or wants or feels.

Everyone does this to a certain extent, because otherwise it gets pretty hard to function in this society. The faceless masses are not "real people" that we know close up and personal. We can't regard every single stranger that passes on the sidewalk in all their multiplexible glory-- and get to work on time.

However, there is a time when objectification becomes a problem, and that is when its effects are felt by a group of people who may or may not have resources to resist it. Employees get objectified by bosses a lot, which is one reason why unions exist.



So we are talking about the kind that gets a lot of press; male objectification of women.

Okay, don't get mad, okay? It's just the theory. we can each of us decide for ourselves how closely we fit this description or not, and if we want to change or not. We don't have to start defending ourselves for a while. Okay? And I will say right now that I KNOW for a fact that I objectify women. It's perceived as less intrusive to women, because I am also a woman-- but it's no less true for all that. Being female doesn't excuse me, and me doing it doesn't excuse anyone else.

Okay.

Pictures of nekkid wimmin, per se, is not objectification. The intent of the picture and the viewer-- may very well be objectification.

The assumption that we might hold, that any women should be pleased to be nekkid for our enjoyment, that we have the right to introduce ourselves into any woman's life for one moment or one decade simply because we think she is beautiful, and we think she should know that we think so--

That type of action is what feminists talk about when they say "objectification of women."

It can be perfectly benign in intent and effect -- like when we tell a lady that she's lovely in that dress, or it can be intrusive, like when we tell a woman that she should smile more often, or it can be invasive, as for example groping her ass because it happens to be near your hand, or abusive like rape. It's a long, sliding, scale, as so many things in our lives are. The difference between a whistle of appreciation and rape-- astronomical.

But be aware that objectification is not merely liking to look at pretty pictures.
 
Ms. Winston's rant sounds like something right out of the '70's. They were forty years ago. And she's complaining about someone being out of touch with the times? I agree with TE999. The ladies don't look as if they were forced into this, nor do they look miserable. Autonomous persons doing what they want. How is this exploitive? And does she fell the same way about a Chippendale's calendar? A waste of perfectly good newsprint, blogspace or whatever.
 
You are my favorite dinosaur, HP!
:D

She is also a bit of a twit.
 
Last edited:
I prefer calendars with puppies on them, I think because, on the calendars, there's no pooping or pissing.

Speaking of which, did you realize that when you objectify a woman because of her cute ass, that's where the poop comes out?
 
Back
Top