Is this acceptable in a school?

[noblegiraffe]

A friend of mine is a teacher in an all boys school. He was showing a group of pupils some of the football and was fast-forwarding to get to the action. The camera lingered on some pretty girls in the crowd (you know the ones they normally pick!) and the pupils demanded that he go back so they could get a proper look. He obliged, but commented that if there had been a single girl in the classroom, he wouldn't have.

Obviously this was a pretty minor incident, but do you think it was fine (and if so, would it have also been fine if there had been girls present?), or is it encouraging the sexual objectification of women? Or anything else?

What are your thoughts?

noblegiraffe, I didn't mean hard core. Apologies if it came over as that.

Do people "ogle" other people in a non-sexual way?

"By the way, he didn't 'join in' with the ogling, the boys asked him to go back so they could see the pretty girls and he did."

How is that not joining in or colluding? Especially with the remark about he wouldn't ahve done it if there were girls present. Just icky. Must go and wash my hands.

"What wouldn't you allow the children to do during lunch break?"

Anything against the school rules, obviously. I would let them watch youtube videos on my projector - usually music videos. The boys sometimes want to watch skateboarding or BMX stunts. If I thought the music had inappropriate lyrics or was something like a Lady Gaga video, I'd turn it off and give them a bit of a lecture, but they pretty much know not to push it.

Some of the computer rooms are open for free use at lunchtime so they could go there and look at Zac Efron pics to their heart's content if they wanted to; it's not like I'd be letting them look at anything they're not allowed to look at elsewhere in school.

seeker, I would see 'joining in' as actively saying 'yeah, they're fit, let's get another look....phwoar'. Colluding, as in giving into their request for another look is different to actually joining in, I think.

The remark about not doing it if girls were present was made to me not the boys.

Msgoddess - we've already covered the sauce for the goose argument. It only works if we lived in an equal society.

oh I can't be bothered to go into the ins and outs, but basically it's one where women are valued as much as men are and where any objectification done to either sex is pretty harmless. At the moment, it's not.

This isn'T ABOUT FEMINISM-IT's about the appropriate bahaviour of a teacher.The OP persists in maintaining her minority position that the behaviour in questuin was apprpriate in the face of evidence to the contrary, so there really isn't any point in debating further.

oh what a load of bollocks you're talking MsG.

Women are not valued as much as men and if you are going to come on the feminism board and tell us they are, you are going to bore everyone. This isn't netmums, you know, our discussions aren't quite so basic.

If it's not about feminism, seeker, why have some people labelled the behaviour of the OP as sexist?

I don't think I ever said the behaviour in the OP was appropriate. I did bring up an equivalent female-male scenario that I wouldn't have thought twice about to find out people's views on that,

"When 'feminism' concerns itself with human physical attraction it becomes terrible unattractive to the mainstream - try and remember that."

Just as well feminism isn't about trying to be attractive to the mainstream then, isn't it?

but it's ok for you to patronise us - 'When 'feminism' concerns itself with human physical attraction it becomes terrible unattractive to the mainstream - try and remember that.' how is that not patronising?

now I've heard everything.

welcome to Mumsnet MsGoddess - enjoy your first day.