Belgian female ex-pro denied sports director role with men’s team due to topless pictures

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

 

This person is taking a position of responsibility and needs to be able command respect... that is a whole lot harder to achieve when they've appeared in Playboy and erotic calendars. 

Perhaps the team is less judgemental than you give them credit for. I remember when the "command respect" argument was used as a reason to prevent gay people from joining the armed services. It's actually subjective, and irrelevent

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Did Pendleton appear in Playboy, if so was it recent enough to be deemed current, and has she ever suggested she wanted to take a development role? 

Irrelevant

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I think any male doing so would also struggle to get a foot in the door these days too. 

Speculation, and irrelevant

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Everyone is happy to forget nuance and context when there is a virtuos drum to be banged, but I can perfectly understand why a team director is going to shy away from being the one giving this indivudal their first shout as a DS. 

The "virtuous drum" seems to be being banged by the team in question....

Compact Corned Beef wrote:

Was about to respond with pretty much the same. It would be 100% different if she was applying to be a teacher or somesuch, but in an adult job, working with other adults? Hard to see why this should be a barrier. Presumably the OP would approve of British Cycling if they excluded Victoria Pendleton from a development role...

I don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to be a teacher if she so wants (and has relevant qualifications). As long as someone hasn't committed a crime and is on an offenders' register then what difference does it make?

When I was at school, there was a female English teacher who had allegedly appeared in a porno and in some magazines but aside from some sniggering in the playground, it made zero difference to her lessons. If you need to ask about the sexual preferences of a teacher of your kids, then I'd be questioning what kind of teaching you're expecting to happen.

Not a personal judgement of mine - I'm reliably informed that it would be considered a safeguarding issue for both prospective teacher and students if said material was widely/easily available.

hawkinspeter wrote:

.......

I don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to be a teacher if she so wants (and has relevant qualifications). As long as someone hasn't committed a crime and is on an offenders' register then what difference does it make?

When I was at school, there was a female English teacher who had allegedly appeared in a porno and in some magazines but aside from some sniggering in the playground, it made zero difference to her lessons. If you need to ask about the sexual preferences of a teacher of your kids, then I'd be questioning what kind of teaching you're expecting to happen.

This is a really good point - as women in the acting world can find it very difficult to progress unless they strip at some point, one might then say that they are ineligible to be teachers.

So in practice the fallout is a de-facto ban on female actors becoming drama/theatre arts teachers.

Or to put it another way, female drama/theatre arts teachers cannot have professional experience of their field.....

KiwiMike wrote:

1. Please explain to me why a male pro topless is any different to the commercial decision she chose to make.... 

In a single word... tits. Like it or not the female breast is deemed a lot more initmate and erotic than the male chest. 

To deny / ignore this is silly. 

You mention Cipollini, but he retired 16 years ago and does not work as a DS. Why is this relevant? Froome has not posed for adult themed magazines... pictures of him undressed were definitely not erotic in nature... far from it. 

Also... how many sponsors are really going to be afronted that their team chose not to hire an active porn model? 

I agree though, people can do what they want with their bodies, but that doesn't mean to say there won't be ramifications associated with that. 

We are not in victorian times, women don't have to swim in their clothes anymore and most of Europe sensibly seems to have a very relaxed attitude to nudity. Some people are just stuck up frumps who can't cope with people in their natural state. Her choice and why should it matter to anyone else. Would be nice to see if any of the team sponsors have ever had a callender adorned with scantilly clad women. Good on her for her attitude towards them. Hopefully another team will realise what a good head she has and get her to work for them.

Derk Davies wrote:

....and most of Europe sensibly seems to have a very relaxed attitude to nudity. 

Aaaah, that's the reason for Brexit! Bloody randy Johnny Euros.....

It was the thin end of the wedge allowing women to cycle at all.  Unnatural.  At the very least they should be required to wear at least three layers of clothing at all times, lest they inflame the passions of any men unfortunate enough to be near to these harridans.

As for a cycling team offering this person a job, what was her husband thinking allowing such a thing?

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

.....

In a single word... tits. Like it or not the female breast is deemed a lot more initmate and erotic than the male chest. 

To deny / ignore this is silly. 

That depends on who's looking. Silly little schoolboys granted.....

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

You mention Cipollini, but he retired 16 years ago and does not work as a DS. Why is this relevant? Froome has not posed for adult themed magazines... pictures of him undressed were definitely not erotic in nature... far from it. 

Again, depends on the beholder

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Also... how many sponsors are really going to be afronted that their team chose not to hire an active porn model? 

That's for the sponsors to decide. I'd be after results frankly...

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I agree though, people can do what they want with their bodies, but that doesn't mean to say there won't be ramifications associated with that. 

So summed up, it's appropriate to deny opportunity to an individual on the basis of gender-biased, prurient opinion of irrelevant, non-illegal, past behaviour.

Captain Badger wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

.....

In a single word... tits. Like it or not the female breast is deemed a lot more initmate and erotic than the male chest. 

To deny / ignore this is silly. 

That depends on who's looking. Silly little schoolboys granted.....

Ok... You deny it... Fair enough. But yeah, we are talking about this person looking after school boys and up to a few years older... So relevant.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

You mention Cipollini, but he retired 16 years ago and does not work as a DS. Why is this relevant? Froome has not posed for adult themed magazines... pictures of him undressed were definitely not erotic in nature... far from it. 

Again, depends on the beholder

Um, ok, but one was posing in a magazine and calendars specifically catering to an audience looking for titillation, the other a cycling magazine...but yeah, they're the same, exactly the same. I'd always read playboy infront of my mum in the living room.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Also... how many sponsors are really going to be afronted that their team chose not to hire an active porn model? 

That's for the sponsors to decide. I'd be after results frankly...

Fair, but the suggestion was that sponsors would be appalled that this person was judged not the best fit due to their porn past. I doubt this.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I agree though, people can do what they want with their bodies, but that doesn't mean to say there won't be ramifications associated with that. 

So summed up, it's appropriate to deny opportunity to an individual on the basis of gender-biased, prurient opinion of irrelevant, non-illegal, past behaviour.

That's an interesting summary. Again, let's take nuance and context out of this hey... Woman denied role due to sex related reasons... Auto grab the pitchfork, some men gotta pay.

 

 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

...

Ok... You deny it... Fair enough. But yeah, we are talking about this person looking after school boys and up to a few years older... So relevant.

No, I clearly said depends who's looking, therefore subjective. Shock horror that a young male might be trained for a sport by someone who has been proved to have (clutches pearls).... breasts! 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

....

Um, ok, but one was posing in a magazine and calendars specifically catering to an audience looking for titillation, the other a cycling magazine...but yeah, they're the same, exactly the same. I'd always read playboy infront of my mum in the living room.

She was naked for some photos. What the beholder makes of it is subjective.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Also... how many sponsors are really going to be afronted that their team chose not to hire an active porn model? 

That again, is a matter for the sponsors, however, sponsors may be concerned about discriminatory hiring practices

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

 

Fair, but the suggestion was that sponsors would be appalled that this person was judged not the best fit due to their porn past. I doubt this.

Past. Exactly. Some sponsors who value fair treatment and an adult approach would be appalled. Some who take the Daily Mail approach would no doubt be queueing up

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

 

Captain Badger wrote:

So summed up, it's appropriate to deny opportunity to an individual on the basis of gender-biased, prurient opinion of irrelevant, non-illegal, past behaviour.

That's an interesting summary. Again, let's take nuance and context out of this hey... Woman denied role due to sex related reasons... Auto grab the pitchfork, some men gotta pay.

My take on your apparent attitude - you've done nothing to dissuade me that it was accurate.

"Woman denied role [Gender-biased] due to sex related [prurient opinion] reasons [irrelevant, non-illegal, past behaviour].

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Auto grab the pitchfork, some men gotta pay.

Really?? merely pointing out the unfair and sexist nature of this situation. But you make it an MRA issue....