Teacher nearly fired for posing on Playboy

http://www.strangeguys.com/2010/05/14/p ... r-playboy/

http://www.strangeguys.com/2010/05/19/p ... r-playboy/

(Read the links by the order I posted them, it'll be easier for you to understand the issue)

So, a 25 yo teacher was almost fired for posing for Playboy because "the local population considers this exposure incompatible with a teachers social status"...It's always about that, isn't it?
On the second link, you'll see that the measure the mayor said that would be taken was to transfer her to administritive work...because, unlike teachers, administritive workers can pose for Playboy...? Wth? :/

I think it's ridiculous.
Though I partly agree with other arguments like "it sends out a bad message to her young students", I found that transfering her to administrative work was just the easy-way out and sends an equally bad message. Maybe an apology by the teachers part to her students and investing in sex-ed would be a much better solution...

(oh, and I know the links don't seem trust worthy but it was the only site I found where the news was in english )

!also, the links contain pictures of the publication which contain some nudity, so don't open the links if you think you'd be offended.!

 

That's what happened...The kids found out about the magazine, showed it to everyone (including their parents) and from then on, it's been all over the news.

I agree that it was wrong and probably poorly thought by the teacher but transfering her to administrative work just sends the wrong message. In a society as conservative as mine, if I where a administrative worker I'd be offended.

I can understand to some point the mayor's decision but I think that an apology and an explanation would've worked just fine.


About that other article you linked, wow, that's fucked up really.
I mean, it just goes to show how far capitalism and descrimination go hand-in-hand. They sell you an image of perfection and if you can't or choose not to be bought into it, then you'll be descriminated, no matter how much knowledge you have of the subject or your willingness to do the job, if you don't agree to the image of perfection of that company, you're not welcome there.
Fuck that

 

+1,

But that was a mistake, on this case, she could've choosen to accept or decline Playboy's offer.
She said yes and was transfered to a work with a lower income, which sends the message that only people with low income may pose nude for magazines what is completely untrue, and probably wasn't even allowed to explain the situation to her students, which, I think, would've been enough to put an end to the situation.

 

I already agreed that it was poorly thought and wrong but the measures taken were also wrong, imo.

As for the other article, words just can't discribe the hypocrisy and stupidity of it, can't they?
Fucking ass-holes

 

I agree with some of your points. Though I don't agree that the ONLY reason for us to exist is to reproduce, maybe in a very cientific-biological level it is, but I don't think that human and non-human beings are only here to reproduce.
But that's another topic...

Though I agree that there needs to be more sexual freedom and I agree that the teacher had every right to pose nude for Playboy, you can't ignore the fact that children will found out about it and maybe influenced by it, which in a world where stereotypes rule and sexism still exists, it wouldn't really help those children mentality. But then again, the fact that they found out about it and showed their friends and parents just goes to show that most of them aren't that naive after all