A Matter of Morals

[thefab444]

I'm 13.

Fair enough, I completely misjudged your motivations. Still don't see what you're getting so worked up about though.

Who are you to decide if there's "absolutely nothing wrong with it"? That argument works both ways

Should've put an IMO in there somewhere really.

 

[Greenback]

I respect anyone's right not to like a photograph. I respect anyone's right to express their dislike of a photograph.

I don't believe in censorship.

 

[blackettstreet]

Should've put an IMO in there somewhere really.

I'm not at all intending to say "this is wrong." It's just my opinion.

This thread is basically a platform for people to express their opinions.

 

[Bittern]

Who are you to decide what is moral or not? If a photograph causes you to get a bit "hot under the collar" then it is immediately deemed immoral, presumably you are married?

So, sexualizing women is a perfectly alright thing to do and not immoral?

I still have this thought in my head that if it were men, hardly anyone would be disagreeing with us here.

 

[CarterUSM]

Have they ever had a "Calendar Girls" type Calendar on any TOC - that would result in apoplexy for some contributors

Scotrail staff had one out last year, and one is ready for print for next year. Cancer charities benefit. Good photo's , though not enough girls in this years for my liking, I believe many more signed up for 2012 print. All photographed at Bo'ness & Kinneil railway. Not officially endorsed by ScotRail, but certainly not discouraged either. I don't see the problem with the competition photo whatsoever, though I am not easily offended by much.

 

[tony_mac]

I don't really have a problem, they are old enough to decide for themselves, but I really hope they aren't pressured into wearing such clothes for work.

Some people like the way they look, and are happy to show that to others. I don't think that should be a basis for employment though, but it often is.

Had they shown sexy men, in a similar state of undress, I doubt that it would have caused a problem either. I am sure that a well-built man glistening with sweat while shovelling coal would also appeal to a lot of people - 'Firemen' calendars aren't exactly a new thing.

I still have this thought in my head that if it were men, hardly anyone would be disagreeing with us here.

To be honest, I think that's just you!

 

[theblackwatch]

Have they ever had a "Calendar Girls" type Calendar on any TOC - that would result in apoplexy for some contributors

Yes there has been one... Northern Rail did a 'cheeky chuffers' calendar for 2011, the news story about it is at http://www.northernrail.org/news/6526

 

[Butts]

So, sexualizing women is a perfectly alright thing to do and not immoral?

I still have this thought in my head that if it were men, hardly anyone would be disagreeing with us here.

I hardly think that photo is sexualising women - it is contrasting the aesthetic qualities of the tartan in relation to the sturdity of the engines construction and omnipresence.

 

[blackettstreet]

So, sexualizing women is a perfectly alright thing to do and not immoral?

This is basically my stance. It's more than one photo, it's really an indication of the lowering of moral standards in society. And this sort of treatment is always more to the female half of the human race.

 

[90019]

I'm not really bothered by the photo.

A bit peeved by people voting for it purely because of the girls though.

 

[Butts]

This is basically my stance. It's more than one photo, it's really an indication of the lowering of moral standards in society. And this sort of treatment is always more to the female half of the human race.

Just as well you are to young to remember "Pirelli Calendars"

 

[Bittern]

I hardly think that photo is sexualising women - it is contrasting the aesthetic qualities of the tartan in relation to the sturdity of the engines construction and omnipresence.

How about this:

Why take a photo of two young women dressed like this sitting on a loco when the loco's hardly in the picture?

I think we all know the answer, and as far as I'm concerned, it's sexualizing women, which is downright wrong.

As for the "firemen calendars", they sexualize men, which I also believe to be downright wrong.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes there has been one... Northern Rail did a 'cheeky chuffers' calendar for 2011, the news story about it is at http://www.northernrail.org/news/6526

I notice that this Northern Rail 2011 calendar that featured male staff, was the idea of two women, according to the report in the report in the link.

 

[Greenback]

A female member of staff at a sports club once put up a calendar which was filled with half naked footballers. I was Club Secretary at the time. Some of the male members complained, and I told them it was fine as far as I was concerned. They asked if they could put up a calendar of scantily clad females. I said I had no problem with that either.

Once the female calendar was up, the member of staff complained. I told her I could not discriminate, it was either calendars for all or none at all.

I see no problem with the photograph in this thread, nor would I see any with a photograph that included men revealing their chests and legs.

 

[Donny Dave]

What's wrong with the photo? Let's take a closer look ....

1. It's over exposed.
2. It's not as sharp as it could be.
3. Colour balance is wrong.

Other than that, I don't see much wrong with it ....

If the OP is getting hot and bothered about that 1 photo, god help him when he see's the Railgirls gallery! hock:

One last thing, just to balance things out for the OP .... http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fi...&ei=XclnToTWG4q18QOexaDECw&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQsAQ

 

[tony_mac]

isn't a fireman the guy that shovels the coal?

(or woman, obviously)

 

[blackettstreet]

...this sort of treatment is always more to the female half of the human race.

Having said that, of course sexulisation of men also occurs, and is just as wrong in my opinion. Right this minute a 'Gay Times' subscription advert has just appeared at the top of my screen, so there you have it.

 

[Butts]

What's wrong with the photo? Let's take a closer look ....

1. It's over exposed.
2. It's not as sharp as it could be.
3. Colour balance is wrong.

Other than that, I don't see much wrong with it ....

If the OP is getting hot and bothered about that 1 photo, god help him when he see's the Railgirls gallery! hock:

One last thing, just to balance things out for the OP .... http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fi...&ei=XclnToTWG4q18QOexaDECw&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQsAQ

Thankyou David .... is that David Bailey

Stop press Rail Girls Gallery......is that retired pensionable age former members of staff....hee ..heee

 

[thefab444]

I think we all know the answer, and as far as I'm concerned, it's sexualizing women, which is downright wrong.

Exactly why do you believe this to be wrong? Religion reasons I assume - "Thou shalt not photograph totty" etc.?

 

[blackettstreet]

Exactly why do you believe this to be wrong? Religion reasons I assume - "Thou shalt not photograph totty" etc.?

Please, I don't want this to be offensive to anyone.....

....including me....

 

[Bittern]

Exactly why do you believe this to be wrong? Religion reasons I assume - "Thou shalt not photograph totty" etc.?

Let's see: How would you like it if you were discriminated against because of your gender?

Here's a thought: It's called sexism. Sexism is wrong. This is not an opinion, this is a bloody fact. You do not go around sexualizing women and expect everything will be fine, because sooner or later, you'd find yourself completely alone as you'll have alienated the decent people.

This image completely sexualizes women. to believe that sexualizing women is wrong is sexism towards women.

And if you'd actually bothered to read, you'd see I'm not in this because of religious reasons. I'm an equalitist.

Edit:

In case you can't tell, I'm on the verge of becoming quite snappy, as when I get into fighting sexism that's what I'm like. I'm very passionate about equality, especially gender equality, and thus am used to arguing against the same arguments that's been presented here.

 

[Butts]

Let's see: How would you like it if you were discriminated against because of your gender?

Here's a thought: It's called sexism. Sexism is wrong. This is not an opinion, this is a bloody fact. You do not go around sexualizing women and expect everything will be fine, because sooner or later, you'd find yourself completely alone as you'll have alienated the decent people.

This image completely sexualizes women. to believe that sexualizing women is wrong is sexism towards women.

And if you'd actually bothered to read, you'd see I'm not in this because of religious reasons. I'm an equalitist.

Presumeably these girls were not coerced into having the photos taken and did so willingly - are they not permitted to do this

 

[AlterEgo]

This is the stupidest discussion for a while.

It's quite clearly a light hearted moment captured on camera.

People seem to forget that female equality isn't about women not wearing tartan skirts. It's about women having the freedom of choice, and the empowerment to choose to wear whatever the hell they please. These two girls have decided they're okay with dressing like that, and very pretty they look too! I am sure they enjoyed themselves, and I'm sure a lot of chaps enjoyed looking at them!

There's nothing "immoral" about this at all.

People offended by this sort of thing really must lead quite boring, sheltered lives.

Does anyone have the phone number of the one on the left?

 

[Butts]

This is the stupidest discussion for a while.

It's quite clearly a light hearted moment captured on camera.

People seem to forget that female equality isn't about women not wearing tartan skirts. It's about women having the freedom of choice, and the empowerment to choose to wear whatever the hell they please. These two girls have decided they're okay with dressing like that, and very pretty they look too! I am sure they enjoyed themselves, and I'm sure a lot of chaps enjoyed looking at them!

There's nothing "immoral" about this at all.

People offended by this sort of thing really must lead quite boring, sheltered lives.

Does anyone have the phone number of the one on the left?

I'll settle for the one on the right then

 

[Bittern]

I agree all you've mentioned are equality, but to get that message though, the sexualization of women has to be reduced. The thought of young women being used for sexual appeal to what is essentially older males has to be eliminated if we're going to get anywhere with equality. It's drastically been reduced in the past half century, but as clearly evidenced by the existence of such images, and even more-so by the number of votes it's attracted due to it's content, it's clear we're still a good bit off the mark.

Naturally, I also do not agree with the women. If it was there choice to wear the clothing, I must ask why. They didn't need to display themselves for what is no doubt some form of sexual gratification of men.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm 13.

I just had a visit from Elle O'Ell.

Seriously fella, there's real female oppression in the world today. Not in this country though!

 

[tony_mac]

In case you can't tell, I'm on the verge of becoming quite snappy, as when I get into fighting sexism that's what I'm like. I'm very passionate about equality, especially gender equality, and thus am used to arguing against the same arguments that's been presented here.

You are not arguing for equality, you are ranting about your particular brand of 'morality'.
It is not the same thing at all.

Naturally, I also do not agree with the women. If it was there choice to wear the clothing, I must ask why. They didn't need to display themselves for what is no doubt some form of sexual gratification of men.

I know this sounds patronising, but you might understand when you grow up!
Some people like they way they look and are happy for other people to notice that they look good. That does not mean they are opressed in some way, and applies to all genders.

Having to look good to be accepted is, I think, another thing altogether - I don't see much evidence of that here. (which also applies to all genders)

 

[Bittern]

This is the stupidest discussion for a while.

Actually, no, it isn't. This is good. I've been wanting to say things like this here for a while as there are too many post on here that suggest that the posters seem to forget there is another gender out there. They assume everyone online is male under mentioned otherwise, they assume that everyone involved in a railway role is male until mentioned or displayed otherwise. Now, it's no secret there are a number of things that bother me, but this is by far the biggest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You are not arguing for equality, you are ranting about your particular brand of 'morality'.
It is not the same thing at all.

Well not in here I'm not. Not in this thread, but this falls upon similar lines. This image is sexualizing women, which his a biiiiiiiig clue that there is still some gender inequality. I believe it's immoral to sexualize women and use them for a sex appeal.

Oh, and I am very passionate about gender equality, thank you. I know what I'm arguing for, as I've done this many times before.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are you mad at the girls for dressing like this?

 

[tony_mac]

Actually, no, it isn't. This is good. I've been wanting to say things like this here for a while as there are too many post on here that suggest that the posters seem to forget there is another gender out there. They assume everyone online is male under mentioned otherwise, they assume that everyone involved in a railway role is male until mentioned or displayed otherwise. Now, it's no secret there are a number of things that bother me, but this is by far the biggest.

I don't think people do assume, generally.
There is a long-standing convention of using the male gender when you don't know - or just guessing based on the probabilities. The use of any particular pronoun does not imply that there is something wrong with another, or that it would make any difference anyway.

Not in this country though!

I think that is a little naive!