Is this acceptable in a school?

Why are we still engaging with this guy?

He's obviously not here to debate, he's just a boring wind up merchant.

The issue of consent is irrelevant here I think. According the the OP, which you kind of confirmed with your "appreciation" comment, you rewound for the purpose of re-viewing the girls because you and you pupils thought they were nice to look at. So objectification for sure.

oops, typo - 'don't realise he's perfectly normal'. sorry, too much wine.

re: ImSoNotTellin
"Do you also watch the women's wimbledon matches in the classroom, in slow motion?

Nothing wrong with that, no sirree, nothing wrong with that at all"

There you go again. Why add slow motion to the equation? Did I mention that? No.

I find it interesting that people have to add their own inferences to make a case for my 'sexism'.

I have to go now, ladies. Good luck with toppling the patriarchy. Although I suspect that all you need is a man's touch to make it happen.
;)

""You genuinely believe that all actions exist in a vacuum, that there is no way that what you did will have confirmed any ideas in impressionable young minds about what women are for"

No, I don't. I think you need to make a case that I did, tbh. "

Um, you keep saying that it was harmless fun and no harm done. Thus you believe that the action of replaying the clip exists in a vacuum, ie it does not reinforce any sexist ideas about women that the boys may have. Now you are arguing that actions like this do not exist in a vacuum?

You seem a little confused.

He's perfectly normal though ISNT. We don't know very much about human nature, if we don't realise he's not perfectly normal. Because none of us realised before that some women like it!

Imp - why did you tell your friend (the OP) about this incident?

Excellent point Hester.

I wonder if any of the boys will tell their mothers...

re: ImSoNotTellin
"Fabulous, you're obviously a real caring kind of guy"
I am actually. Thanks.

"You genuinely believe that all actions exist in a vacuum, that there is no way that what you did will have confirmed any ideas in impressionable young minds about what women are for"

No, I don't. I think you need to make a case that I did, tbh.

Do you also watch the women's wimbledon matches in the classroom, in slow motion?

Nothing wrong with that, no sirree, nothing wrong with that at all.

I think you get a TBH.

How did the women consent to be viewed?

If I go to see a sporting fixture which is televised, I do not go so with the explicit knowledge that my image might be used for a classroom-full of teenaged boys to leer over. I have not given my consent for that.

Please god let this man never, ever teach my daughters.

Leaving aside what he actually did, just the fact that a whole group of mothers is telling him they find his actions inappropriate, and he is refusing to listen, reflect or even be respectful in response - well, words fail.

There is a difference between a man looking at a woman (in a non-lecherous manner), or a woman looking at a man in the same way.

And a grown man in a teaching role, bowing to the catcalls and protestations of his male teenage students, and rewinding and replaying a section of a television program, on the basis that said young men thought that the young women were hot. With teacher encouraging them in their ogling and (as far as i can see) joining in. Which is why I asked how old the girls were.

Re: Prolesworth
"Well go on then, tell us exactly what happened imperator, I'm all ears.

"

What's the meaning of the bahhhhh? Hardly an adult's way of putting a question, is it?

I have provided the details that matter. The women were not belittled, they were not intimidated, they wore clothes, and consented to be viewed. No one discussed them, and no one made any comments at all about them. They asked me to rewind it, and I did. The boys laughed, that is all. It was harmless fun. I know this because no harm was caused.

Now, will someone make a case for harm that does not involve pretending that what i did was akin to showing them a porn flick, or overt racism?

No, I thought not.

deeply unprofessional

and the 'it was on BBC1' argument doesn't wash either - just because sports cameramen like to objectify women doesn't mean that it is acceptable for a teacher to reinforce that

"Tell me one thing I have said that displays an ignorance of feminism."

erm.... you not getting the issues around the word 'shrill'?

now please do tell me which feminists you have read cos I'm dying to know.

Imp - how do you know that wasn't the first time you noticed 'shrill' being used, and actually it had been used lots of times by men of women but you hadn't noticed because that's normal? I would probably notice too if I heard a woman say it of a man, but I'm unlikely to remember you using it today because it was so terribly dull and typical.

Let's just have this again shall we.

"Gay people have to et used to living in a largely heterosexual culture. If they are uncomfortable in this situation, they'll get over it."

Fabulous, you're obviously a real caring kind of guy.

Anyhoo.

You genuinely believe that all actions exist in a vacuum, that there is no way that what you did will have confirmed any ideas in impressionable young minds about what women are for? Good luck with that.

Re:sethstarkaddersmum
Tell me one thing I have said that displays an ignorance of feminism. You do realise that not all feminists claim that men looking at women is wrong...or did you not know that?

Well, I am sceptical. Unless you don't debate much.

RE: TheFallenMadon
Yes, I do. Have you a problem with that?

re: ImSoNotTelling
The problem with your post is that because my argument has been used to justify other acts, that my act is as bad as those acts. Can you not see how that is a weak argument?

These women were not groped, they were not belittled, we did not discuss them. They were looked at, that is all. They had clothes on, and they had volunteered to be filmed by the BBC for an introductory voxpox on football.

I think, to be honest, that many people here are making assumptions about what happened, as opposed to finding out what happened.